|
On October 14 2016 01:58 farvacola wrote:
Complexity is a rather complex topic, though I'm inclined to assert that cars are slightly more complex by virtue of the forces that act on them and their engines.
If we go with "time to cobble it together with a group of 5 people", we'd still need to define the end product.
A modern car is enormously complex (and lets face it, F1 cars are at the cutting edge of material research, modern combustion, aerodynamics, safety and other related topics). However, something that is recognizable as a car, is a combustion engine strapped to a chassis with 4 wheels. Whereas something recognizable a a computer would, imho, be a lot harder to build. You'd also need to create a basic OS. You'd need a bigger variety of different skills to build a basic computer than you need to build a car.
Hell. I'm a computer scientist and I reckon that with some training and the right tools I could build something that would function as a car. I wouldn't be able to build something that functions like a computer. I could probably put together a Babbage Difference Engine, though.
|
On October 14 2016 02:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 01:58 farvacola wrote:
Complexity is a rather complex topic, though I'm inclined to assert that cars are slightly more complex by virtue of the forces that act on them and their engines. If we go with "time to cobble it together with a group of 5 people", we'd still need to define the end product. A modern car is enormously complex (and lets face it, F1 cars are at the cutting edge of material research, modern combustion, aerodynamics, safety and other related topics). However, something that is recognizable as a car, is a combustion engine strapped to a chassis with 4 wheels. Whereas something recognizable a a computer would, imho, be a lot harder to build. You'd also need to create a basic OS. You'd need a bigger variety of different skills to build a basic computer than you need to build a car. Hell. I'm a computer scientist and I reckon that with some training and the right tools I could build something that would function as a car. I wouldn't be able to build something that functions like a computer. I could probably put together a Babbage Difference Engine, though.
It really depends how you define "cobble together"
Computers are fairly simple things, its more about scale, speed, etc...
I could piece together a command function on a poster and just point to whichever poster was the most relevant answer to someone's question and I now have a functioning computer. I wouldn't even know where I would get the resources needed to get the materials of a car and then manipulate those materials.
And the reason for that is a that a computer can be simplified much more than a car can. One can even argue that an abacus is just a primitive computer and anyone can do that.
Cars are more complicated to define in a simplified manner. Something between Cart and Train. Enough power to propel itself, but with enough control that its not just an explosion strapped on to rails. Until those definitions are met you can't really ever answer the question.
|
On October 14 2016 01:52 Uldridge wrote:
Hmm.. let's say the amount of things that have to come together before we get a completely functioning tool (a car or a computer) which a present day human can use.
Here is a computer your standard pc bought at the store with all the possible tweaks.
Here is a car a random brand you buy with all the modern extra's.
Let's not pimp them out too much if we go full option on both.
Also, while a car has computers, these computers are there for very concrete things, while for desktops... it's much broader.
So... What is more complex?
Well judging by the respective cost of both objects (and even more so if you take into account the fact that one has been around for much longer than the other !), and assuming that primary materials are not that much costlier for cars, I'd say cars are definitely more complex.
|
On October 14 2016 05:07 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 01:52 Uldridge wrote:
Hmm.. let's say the amount of things that have to come together before we get a completely functioning tool (a car or a computer) which a present day human can use.
Here is a computer your standard pc bought at the store with all the possible tweaks.
Here is a car a random brand you buy with all the modern extra's.
Let's not pimp them out too much if we go full option on both.
Also, while a car has computers, these computers are there for very concrete things, while for desktops... it's much broader.
So... What is more complex? Well judging by the respective cost of both objects (and even more so if you take into account the fact that one has been around for much longer than the other !), and assuming that primary materials are not that much costlier for cars, I'd say cars are definitely more complex.
I think your assumption is wrong there. A computer is a few kg of mostly plastic and sand. A car is a couple of hundred kg of steel (as well as the few kg of plastic and sand). But I also think there are different types of complexity. Simply replacing the windscreen of a car costs the same as a cheap PC. A windscreen is not complex in terms of what happens in it, but the process for making a big curved piece of tempered glass is probably rather complex. However, I am not sure that the windscreen is a quitessential part of its car-ness.
|
On October 14 2016 05:18 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 05:07 OtherWorld wrote:On October 14 2016 01:52 Uldridge wrote:
Hmm.. let's say the amount of things that have to come together before we get a completely functioning tool (a car or a computer) which a present day human can use.
Here is a computer your standard pc bought at the store with all the possible tweaks.
Here is a car a random brand you buy with all the modern extra's.
Let's not pimp them out too much if we go full option on both.
Also, while a car has computers, these computers are there for very concrete things, while for desktops... it's much broader.
So... What is more complex? Well judging by the respective cost of both objects (and even more so if you take into account the fact that one has been around for much longer than the other !), and assuming that primary materials are not that much costlier for cars, I'd say cars are definitely more complex. I think your assumption is wrong there. A computer is a few kg of mostly plastic and sand. A car is a couple of hundred kg of steel (as well as the few kg of plastic and sand). But I also think there are different types of complexity. Simply replacing the windscreen of a car costs the same as a cheap PC. A windscreen is not complex in terms of what happens in it, but the process for making a big curved piece of tempered glass is probably rather complex. However, I am not sure that the windscreen is a quitessential part of its car-ness.
Well, as said before, define "complex". If "simply" curving a big piece of glass is complex in terms of engineering required, and if that's only a tiny piece of a car as a whole, then clearly a car is more complex.
|
What about the networking potential and all the software and code going into programs?
If you're only looking at hardware it's pretty obvious, but that's not at all the total picture.
|
On October 14 2016 05:39 Uldridge wrote:
What about the networking potential and all the software and code going into programs?
If you're only looking at hardware it's pretty obvious, but that's not at all the total picture.
Computer: Taking electricity and controlling its flow through a metal maze.
Code: A bunch of yes no questions asked in sequence
Engine: Taking an explosion and transforming it into motion
Car Frame: Taking rocks and transforming it into a thin lightweight material through a combination of heat and chemistry
Glass: Taking sand and transforming it into a transparent shield
Wheels: Processing rotted carcasses into circular momentum transfer devices
etc...
|
On October 14 2016 05:39 Uldridge wrote:
What about the networking potential and all the software and code going into programs?
If you're only looking at hardware it's pretty obvious, but that's not at all the total picture.
Even then, I'm not convinced. One is a static object, with few safety concerns, low maintenance, whose main tasks are basically to calculate very fast and manage memory allocation soundly. The other is a moving object, composed of various failure-prone parts and carrying insane kinetic energy, with various safety concerns, high maintenance, whose main task is to get people around while dealing with different grip conditions, weight transfer, driver inputs, etc.
Basically I'd say that what makes a car more complex is the diversity of what makes a car run vs what makes a computer run, as well as the fact that cars must be able to operate under circumstances unknown at the time of design.
|
On October 14 2016 06:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 05:39 Uldridge wrote:
What about the networking potential and all the software and code going into programs?
If you're only looking at hardware it's pretty obvious, but that's not at all the total picture. Computer: Taking electricity and controlling its flow through a metal maze. Code: A bunch of yes no questions asked in sequence Engine: Taking an explosion and transforming it into motion Car Frame: Taking rocks and transforming it into a thin lightweight material through a combination of heat and chemistry Glass: Taking sand and transforming it into a transparent shield Wheels: Processing rotted carcasses into circular momentum transfer devices etc...
I love how you trivialized the first and then were absolutely lyrical about the second haha
I guess the consensus is in then, cars are more complex than computers!
|
Just depends how you classify things.
A boeing 747 (or other large newer airliners) are the pinnacle of mechanical engineering, and a modern smartphone is the pinnacle of electrical engineering (and CS and Software engineering for the software).
If you start a human civilization with 5 people on Earth, with no knowledge whatsoever, they'll be achieved at more or less the same time, as the technologies are so intertwined.
If we're talking about any car and any computer, then surely a car will be built first, as the process for creating a mobile power source is:
Wind mill or pelton wheel to move a shaft doesn't take long to come up with, and then making a connection to steam being able to move things, and creating a steam cycle isn't difficult... Put a steam cycle on a thing with wheels, and voila, all done.
Building a computer shouldn't be hard either if you have the knowledge, all you need is a conducting material, wrap some coils up to make solenoids and use them to make gates, and in essence what you make is a massive transistor for logic gate purposes. Hook those up in a simple way, and all of the sudden you're able to add binary numbers, ie a simple computer. Without the knowledge though, I imagine it'd go the way that human civilization did it 99% of the time, extracting water power from moving fluids and pressure differences and using it, before understanding electromagnetism well enough to harness that power into batteries, or converting that power into electrical energy.
An argument for a computer being more complex is that Microsoft has 118,000 employees, Intel has 100,000, not to mention how mention the other companies you'd need for power supplies, GPU's, hard drives, etc.
Meanwhile a company like Opel makes top-end cars and only have 1,400 employees, but it doesn't compare well, since there are so many other companies in the chain to make it happen.
Yeah, just not a good question hah.
|
On October 14 2016 06:56 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 05:39 Uldridge wrote:
What about the networking potential and all the software and code going into programs?
If you're only looking at hardware it's pretty obvious, but that's not at all the total picture. Computer: Taking electricity and controlling its flow through a metal maze. Code: A bunch of yes no questions asked in sequence Engine: Taking an explosion and transforming it into motion Car Frame: Taking rocks and transforming it into a thin lightweight material through a combination of heat and chemistry Glass: Taking sand and transforming it into a transparent shield Wheels: Processing rotted carcasses into circular momentum transfer devices etc... I love how you trivialized the first and then were absolutely lyrical about the second haha I guess the consensus is in then, cars are more complex than computers!
I am bringing up the point that it really depends on what you mean by "complex" and what your baseline is.
On the extreme end would you say an Smart Phone is more complex than a shuttle launch? Would you say a piece of paper with pre-written logic paths is more or less complex than a skate board?
What's the baseline? What constitutes "car" or "computer" or anything for that matter.
A calculator is a computer, is that more complex than a Semitruck? Etc...
The question needs to be more specific.
|
Hey, Here is where you ask and answer stupid questions about anything, fashion, science, whatever. 
I didn't think these would be such incomparable objects, though. If you clearly define complexity, or what it takes before you can do certain things with technological advances I guess you could do some kind of quantification, no?
Anyway, I'll leave it alone ... for now.
On October 14 2016 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 14 2016 06:56 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 05:39 Uldridge wrote:
What about the networking potential and all the software and code going into programs?
If you're only looking at hardware it's pretty obvious, but that's not at all the total picture. Computer: Taking electricity and controlling its flow through a metal maze. Code: A bunch of yes no questions asked in sequence Engine: Taking an explosion and transforming it into motion Car Frame: Taking rocks and transforming it into a thin lightweight material through a combination of heat and chemistry Glass: Taking sand and transforming it into a transparent shield Wheels: Processing rotted carcasses into circular momentum transfer devices etc... I love how you trivialized the first and then were absolutely lyrical about the second haha I guess the consensus is in then, cars are more complex than computers! I am bringing up the point that it really depends on what you mean by "complex" and what your baseline is. On the extreme end would you say an Smart Phone is more complex than a shuttle launch? Would you say a piece of paper with pre-written logic paths is more or less complex than a skate board? What's the baseline? What constitutes "car" or "computer" or anything for that matter. A calculator is a computer, is that more complex than a Semitruck? Etc... The question needs to be more specific.
Come on man, I was kinda hoping you guys would go full piraña for this question
How much of a hard science could social/behavioral sciences become (mathmatical formulas, strong empirical evidence, conclusive theories, reproducibility and predictability, ...) if we look at trends of psychology becoming more and more neuroscientific based and leans more and more to physiology?
|
On October 14 2016 07:26 Uldridge wrote:Hey, Show nested quote +Here is where you ask and answer stupid questions about anything, fashion, science, whatever. I didn't think these would be such incomparable objects, though. If you clearly define complexity, or what it takes before you can do certain things with technological advances I guess you could do some kind of quantification, no? Anyway, I'll leave it alone ... for now. Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 14 2016 06:56 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 05:39 Uldridge wrote:
What about the networking potential and all the software and code going into programs?
If you're only looking at hardware it's pretty obvious, but that's not at all the total picture. Computer: Taking electricity and controlling its flow through a metal maze. Code: A bunch of yes no questions asked in sequence Engine: Taking an explosion and transforming it into motion Car Frame: Taking rocks and transforming it into a thin lightweight material through a combination of heat and chemistry Glass: Taking sand and transforming it into a transparent shield Wheels: Processing rotted carcasses into circular momentum transfer devices etc... I love how you trivialized the first and then were absolutely lyrical about the second haha I guess the consensus is in then, cars are more complex than computers! I am bringing up the point that it really depends on what you mean by "complex" and what your baseline is. On the extreme end would you say an Smart Phone is more complex than a shuttle launch? Would you say a piece of paper with pre-written logic paths is more or less complex than a skate board? What's the baseline? What constitutes "car" or "computer" or anything for that matter. A calculator is a computer, is that more complex than a Semitruck? Etc... The question needs to be more specific. Come on man, I was kinda hoping you guys would go full piraña for this question How much of a hard science could social/behavioral sciences become (mathmatical formulas, strong empirical evidence, conclusive theories, reproducibility and predictability, ...) if we look at trends of psychology becoming more and more neuroscientific based and leans more and more to physiology?
Psychology and Political Science is slowly moving towards Economics level "hard science" as a lot of their experiments are becoming closer and closer to clinical trials styled design. Yes its also going into Neuroscience style statistics, but any kind of time series based experimentation will eventually be a lot more Math focused in their design.
Yes, it would be more so if it started moving towards more brain chemistry and neuron pathways focused, but even maintaining the current standing of distant observations directed towards human behavior, you can already shift towards the environmental/biology modeling in focus.
|
|
|
|
|
On October 15 2016 09:00 JimmiC wrote:
If your tone deaf does all music sound the same?
Sadly that's not really the issue with being tone deaf.
The issue with tone deaf (at least when I was in theater) was the inability to hear your own voice.
Most people are "essentially" tone deaf from a performance perspective (me for example). The random person on the street when given a random note cannot tell you that its a C# vs a C for example. But most people can, with a bit of coaching, emulate a similar sound--or at least come close.
Tone deaf is when the sound you make is not the same as the sound you hear.
Now, the truth is that no one is tone deaf, they're just not well practiced. With enough training and help you can figure out what sounds you need to make in order to emulate the sounds you hear. Once you do this, you can hear a note and then sing in that note.
A better example is that no one is bad at computer games. The physical limitations of video games are so small that, for the most part, everyone can by 90% good at it. Some take longer to get there than others, but its all just muscle memory in the end. Same with tone deafness.
|
|
|
Just because some people blindly trust AI does not mean that everyone does. That alone makes AI cars illegible as mandatory for public roads.
I personally wouldn't trust an AI driven car with my life, much less that of others.
|
On October 16 2016 01:57 Incognoto wrote:
Just because some people blindly trust AI does not mean that everyone does. That alone makes AI cars illegible as mandatory for public roads.
I personally wouldn't trust an AI driven car with my life, much less that of others.
How self aware do you think these self driving cars are?
Their not going to decide the other lane is more interesting or that humans are an annoying pest that should be exterminated.
Its a set of sensors constructing a scene and applies traffic laws...
|
On October 16 2016 01:57 Incognoto wrote:
Just because some people blindly trust AI does not mean that everyone does. That alone makes AI cars illegible as mandatory for public roads.
I personally wouldn't trust an AI driven car with my life, much less that of others.
I do not trust human-driven cars. I personally wouldn't trust a human-driven car with my life, much less that of others. Does that make human-driven cars "illegible as mandatory for public roads" ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
