Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

scottlocklin.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 92 posts

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#31

Post by pydry »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #22
pydry wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offshoring did 90% of that, not computers. The effect of computerization was just to keep some industrial production at home - mostly the unique kind of manufacturing where labor costs weren't dominant. I think the US is in for an epic shock in few years time when they realize just how much getting cut off from Chinese factories will hurt. Either demand for labor to substitute those Chinese factories will spike or th…

I don't think so. We have major domestic and on-shoring efforts taking place and a massive pool of migrants to draw from for cheap labor in addition to low cost collaborations with Mexico. The cost of trashy consumer goods might spike but the market would quickly supply alternatives for manufacture of important goods.

Everything you said would all be absolutely true if we reversed course some time between 2008 and 2017.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#32

Post by rini17 »

virtue3 wrote: post #17

I think this article is drastically downplaying how dramatically more complicated designs and things are now than they were before. I don't believe it's computers that are to blame; I believe it's complexity nightmare problem. We have much tighter tolerances for everything now; everything "does more" and relies on my components. Back when we used pen and paper to create military vehicles it was mostly JUST about perf…

And what about financial services mentioned in the articles? Doubt that "everything does more" there.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#33

Post by matheweis »

There are at least two dimensions to this that I believe that the author has overlooked:

1. Economies of scale. It may be that drafting something up in CAD takes more cycles to get right up front, but once you have an established design it is much easier to reproduce it by orders of magnitude

2. Changes in software. Software companies are ever changing their interfaces, decreasing productivity every time their users encounter this learning curve.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#34

Post by dopylitty »

For similar reasons to those mentioned in the article it's possible the past century will be seen as a dark age by future humans. Computers are incredibly fragile and depend on complex systems (eg the electricity grid) to even operate. They also can't persist data even across several decades reliably. Yet we've created a society where nothing can be done without a computer and all our data is stored in computers instead of physically.

When those complex systems fail and the computers stop working we'll be left without any traces of the knowledge generated in the past century or the people who generated it. We'll also have lost all the previous knowledge that was moved from physical to digital storage.

All future humans will see from the century is a whole lot of microplastics.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#35

Post by paulryanrogers »

hulitu wrote: post #21
virtue3 wrote: post #17

I think this article is drastically downplaying how dramatically more complicated designs and things are now than they were before. I don't believe it's computers that are to blame; I believe it's complexity nightmare problem. We have much tighter tolerances for everything now; everything "does more" and relies on my components. Back when we used pen and paper to create military vehicles it was mostly JUST about perf…

> everything "does more" Windows 2000 GUI was much more complex than the Windows 10 or 11 GUI. Yet Windows 10 and 11 have difficulties painting the screen (glitches, black screens for a second, and so on).

W2K didn't support 3D GPUs. IIRC it's hardware support was quite limited, at least at launch. I also remember having to reboot after every driver install or update.

Which isn't to say modern Windows shouldn't do better. Its quality seems to have dropped dramatically since they started outsourcing QA to the fans.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#36

Post by p_l »

hulitu wrote: post #21
virtue3 wrote: post #17

I think this article is drastically downplaying how dramatically more complicated designs and things are now than they were before. I don't believe it's computers that are to blame; I believe it's complexity nightmare problem. We have much tighter tolerances for everything now; everything "does more" and relies on my components. Back when we used pen and paper to create military vehicles it was mostly JUST about perf…

> everything "does more" Windows 2000 GUI was much more complex than the Windows 10 or 11 GUI. Yet Windows 10 and 11 have difficulties painting the screen (glitches, black screens for a second, and so on).

The amount of pixels that had to be rendered and pushed, as well as certain lower security in windows 2000, meant that just the pushing of pixels was simpler compared to today. Windows 11 graphic path even for same application code as on windows 2000 is way more complex, and arguably most of that complexity is warranted and needed.

Otherwise you get unfortunate side effects like simple text editor using surprisingly lot of CPU and lagging...

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#37

Post by ElevenLathe »

flavaz wrote: post #7

A classic example of this would be how some roles require endless spreadsheets, or individual updates to a CRM tool like Pipedrive. CRM tools add a lot of overhead to what should be a simple process- letting your manager know what you’re up to.

Good to know sales people have their own version of JIRA hell.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#38

Post by RandomLensman »

rini17 wrote: post #32
virtue3 wrote: post #17

I think this article is drastically downplaying how dramatically more complicated designs and things are now than they were before. I don't believe it's computers that are to blame; I believe it's complexity nightmare problem. We have much tighter tolerances for everything now; everything "does more" and relies on my components. Back when we used pen and paper to create military vehicles it was mostly JUST about perf…

And what about financial services mentioned in the articles? Doubt that "everything does more" there.

The referenced article is mainly about about capital efficiency from introducing computers which isn't so surprising as it needs time to (figure out how to) use them effectively.

Nowadays, handling payments, compliance, risk management, trading etc. without computers would be impossible. What is true is that a fair amount of productivity is absorbed on compliance and control issues, though.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#39

Post by rbanffy »

GTP wrote: post #11
rbanffy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t decide whether they had a valid point or whether they were engaging in some form of parody. Seems like an extreme case of Poe’s Law.

I think that if you filter-out the exaggerations in the article, the general message is still worth to reflect on. Some process doesn't get more efficient just by virtue of using a computer, and many tools we have now are more about good-looking interfaces than actual productivity.

Not only that, but a lot of the efficiency gains are directed towards tasks that, otherwise, would not be done because it wasn’t worth the cost. Now that the cost is low enough, their marginal gains absorb the resources that’s be freed by automation.

That’s the origin of so-called “bullshit jobs”.

Post reply on HN