As I promised
in a previous post about Robert Gordon’s The
Rise and Fall of American Growth (Man, Gordon's book is Good),
I would like to expand what I consider a major source of error for
techno-utopians and cornucopians, namely, the fact that their limited
professional experience (normally limited to academic life, think tanks and
some gigs as “strategic” consultants of big corporations, far enough from the
nuts and bolts of daily operations) has left them entirely ignorant of the
dynamics (and pitfalls) of rapid prototyping, which have become a major
distorting factor in most innovative endeavors.
I will start
with a somewhat generic remark on viewpoints: although pure impartiality (what
Thomas Nagel called felicitously “the view from nowhere”) is a noble ideal we
should strive for, I understand that it is damn difficult to achieve. People
think, and write, necessarily from their own experience, and what they had a
chance to know and experience firsthand tints what they are able to think, and
how they come to think about it. When I finally understood what Marx had done
for a living (barely) for most of his adult life much of his writing became finally
intelligible for me: in this case, he was essentially a man with a “journalistic
sensibility”, what other sensibility could he have, if all he ever got paid for
was writing articles for newspapers and magazines? He never had much time or
resources to academically think “deeply” about any issue pertaining how society
worked (all he had to go on were secondhand opinions of British thinkers of the
previous generation, the “classical economists” available in the British Museum
library, whose reading he had to cram haphazardly between commissioned work),
or to organize and direct any sizeable group of people (not a political party,
not a trade union, not even a neighborly association, and not for sure any of
the “international workers’ movements” with which he was affiliated or from
which he was kicked off), so he was understandably clueless about any of them.
Similarly, to
understand the thought of some of our current opinion makers we need to get a
grasp of where they come from. Not necessarily to undermine their arguments
(that have to be considered, as they say, “on their merits”) but to put them in
perspective and better ascertain what kind of bias and distortion they may have
been subjected to. We can then group the proponents of a new golden age based
on the acceleration of “innovation” based around software in two broad groups:
the software developers themselves (be they entrepreneurs that ended directing
their companies, like Bill Gates, or financiers that ended gaining some
understanding of how the companies they put their money in worked, like Marc
Andreesen) and the journalists that have chronicled their rise, and written
books about it (although sometimes they hold some academic position, the role
they play is mainly as mouthpieces and popularizers of the formers’ worldview,
as we will see).
What kind of
distortions can we expect from people that have worked all their life within
the software industry? A considerable number of them, as it happens. We have to
start noting that this is a pretty recent creation. The first corporate
computer systems were conceived and installed at the end of the 60’s, but their
propagation didn’t start in earnest until the beginning of the 80’s (I
distinctly remember how at the very beginning of my own professional career,
and before that, while I was at University, most desks did not yet have a
computer even in advanced fields like engineering), so the first batch of full
time programmers that operated in a somewhat structured, well established
industry is not yet approaching retirement. So of course they see work as being
revolutionized by the software they install, and which they increasingly use
for developing their trade. But, unsurprisingly, machine tool operators (or
engineers) have a much more nuanced view, as they see software (and computers
in general) as an additional tool that fits with other tools they have used
traditionally in a context that hasn’t changed that dramatically. That has, in
other words, evolved without that much “revolutioning”.
An additional
factor to be taken into account is the extent of “self-consumption” within the
industry: new languages and tools are increasingly used to build (supposedly)
more powerful programs that in turn can be used by the industry or the
consumers. But the programmers usually are pretty ignorant about how the
external world uses (or benefits from) their end products, even requiring a
whole new class of workers (that call
itself, in a revealing self-congratulatory way, “consultants”) to translate
what they produce into terms that end users can understand. Not that being so
self-congratulatory is warranted in any way, as the track record of what
software does to companies and individuals is pretty abysmal (an old piece of
statistic from the 90’s revealed that 50% of software implementations in big
corporations was never completed, if you added the roughly 30% that was
completed but failed miserably to achieve any of the “business objectives” that
had been set for it, four out of five projects were a colossal waste of time
and effort of all involved).
Finally, the
kind of people attracted to the industry, not to put too fine a grain around
it, leads to an overrepresentation of what is traditionally known as “nerds”:
individuals with little social skills that have spent an inordinate amount of
their lives playing video games (software) and discussing the evolution of
computing power as if it would deliver them from all their shortcomings. I’m
not saying every single participant in such a big sector of the economy is a
cartoonish version of Sheldon Cooper, but I do think you can find a higher
percentage of people with that kind of mental setup in software development
(and related industries: IT consulting, support, telecoms, etc.) than in
retail, manufacturing or construction.
So the first kind
of people touting their opinion that “software is eating the world” or that “every
business is a digital business” are the people more set to benefit from such
purported state of affairs, which should already make us suspicious of the
accuracy of such statements (people always tend to see as more likely those events
that favor them). What about the second kind, the journalists and popularizers?
Shouldn’t they have a wider view, less invested, and thus more objective? Sadly
no, because of two factors, that I will call the “journalistic bend” and the “prototype
fallacy”.
The journalistic bend
There is one
reason I chose my enhanced understanding of Marx to exemplify the importance of
understanding a man’s profession in order to calibrate the validity of his
opinions. As it happens, when such profession consists in writing for the “general
public” (what in more elitist ages was known as the “uneducated masses”, but
who would proudly claim to be educated in these egalitarian days?) the opinions
proffered are to be taken with more than the traditional grain of salt. What is
indeed the skill that the journalist/ popularizer has to cultivate during his
professional career to make a living? An optimist would say it’s the ability to
clarify complex ideas, to identify from the confused mass of facts and opinions
the most salient features that can be communicated and easily comprehended by
his peers. Yep, sure… if you think that is how the real world works, I still
have that bridge in Brooklyn I mention so frequently, and I’m surprisingly
willing to cut you an unbeatable deal. That skill would be valuable in a world
of discerning publics that could differentiate between streamlined prose that
keeps close to the truth and an unadulterated load of claptrap. That is most empathetically
NOT the world we live in, so having such skill is exactly of ZERO use to any
aspiring journalist.
What the
aspiring journalist needs is the ability to sound knowledgeable on any issue,
to appear as authoritative even when he doesn’t harbor the slightest, tiniest,
most minute idea of what he is talking (or writing) about. What the schools of
journalism do indeed teach (in a more or less veiled way) is how to feign
authority, how to have audiences trust you, how to, if needed, dissemble with
confidence and poise and self-assuredly, with absolute disregard of the gaping
chasm that may exist between what one communicates and how things may really be
(it helps to live in a culture where finding out “how things really be” has
been questioned and doubted and practically banished from public discourse). What
they teach, in less words, is how to bullshit the audience, assuming it will
not notice anyway. Not surprising then that what fills 99% of the media, in the
airwaves and in print, is none other than bullshit, and a sorry testament of
the state of the world is that 99% of the audience buys into it and swallows it
hook, line and sinker.
The prototype fallacy
So we live in
a “mass media society” where the lack of education (both in highbrow culture
and in complex technical aspects that require some command of STEM subjects to
be understood) of the audiences and the lack of scruples of communicators may
give some salience to lies like “we live in an age of unparalleled technical
advance” or “the economy is becoming more and more digital, so faster computers
is all we need to build a better world for all”, that still doesn’t explain that
such misguided statements are not revealed sooner rather than later for the
baloney they really are. In most ages of humanity there has been a combination
of gullible public and hucksters trained to exploit them, and the (false) ideas
like “the Earth is flat” or “The Earth is at the center of the solar system” or
“bodies in free fall move towards the floor with constant velocity” were
finally exposed as fraudulent and discarded (note I’ve chosen three examples of
ideas about facts, not events, as discussed in my post about
Collingwood and the viability of social sciences why social sciences suck).
True, and in each age those false beliefs have been propped by a subset of the
contemporary dominant reason that made them appear more “believable”, more
likely than they really, prima facie,
were. In the case of the centrality of the Earth it was Christian dogma and a
certain interpretation of a passage of the bible (that didn’t impede
Protestants to abandon the idea much sooner than Catholics, which would merit a
post-long disquisition of its own). In the case of the constant speed of a
falling body it was the authority of Aristotle (and the lack of instruments
with the required precision). I will argue that in the case of the ongoing acceleration
of technical progress (similarly fallacious) the plausibility derives from what
I’m calling the “prototype fallacy”.
What is a
prototype? In the software world, it is a program that can be built very fast,
to show how a function would be performed once it is fully developed, assess the
viability of the proposed solution and identify que interfaces it may require
with other systems (or with humans, as prototypes are many times used as “proof-of-concept”
to validate with future users the design of an application). Prototypes are
wonderful tools (there is a whole school of software project development
structured around RPB, Rapid Prototype Building, based on essentially iterating
around them until you have the wholly working system, and the family of Agile methodologies
evolved from that) BUT they are very dangerous too, as they systematically lead
its less trained users underestimate the effort required to finish the
application and overestimate the value and capabilities of the prototype
itself: A common joke of the 90’s told about a programmer who died, went to the
pearly gates and was presented by St. Peter with a picture of how Heaven looked
like (a bit dull) and by the devil with how Hell looked like (lots of wild fun
and exotic pleasures) so he could decide where he wanted to spend the
afterlife. He chooses hell, obviously, but once there is tossed on a cauldron
of boiling oil surrounded by flames and the screams of the damned souls that
fill the place. When he complains to the devil, he receives the answer “man,
that was the prototype, this is what it ended looking like when we finally
could build it” (and of course, he can not complain, knowing all too well this
is how this things work).
The thing
about prototype is that they seem to have 90% of what the final system needs
already built in. Only a few interfaces with external systems have not been
developed, instead calling a “dummy” that behaves “exactly” like the external
system will. And some complex algorithms have not been finished, so some simple
routine that gives always the same result (“not that different” from what the
algorithm will calculate) has been plugged in. And some controls and
interactions within the user interface may need to be tweaked to improve
intuitiveness and user-friendliness, but those will be surely minor changes
that require very little effort. So it is typically assumed that even being
extremely pessimistic, with a little final push and an additional 20% effort
the application will be ready for roll out (the “10%” or remaining
functionality should take no more than 10% of the effort already invested, 20%
tops).
Any seasoned
project manager knows where this is going. That “10%” of remaining
functionality simply takes forever to be completed, tested and integrated. And
once integrated new bugs and problems keep showing up. The interfaces have to
be redefined. The minor changes in the user interface require major
reprogramming of the data base and the data accesses. The algorithms demand
additional data that in turn imply changes in a myriad other parts of the
application. Lucky is the team that can complete the application with only four
times more effort than what it took to develop the prototype. Hence the famous “Pareto
rule” so well known by planners and schedulers in Sw projects, that states that
80% of the functionality is achieved with 20% of the effort (and in 20% of the
time), and getting to 100% requires the remaining 80%.
In the world of
power engineering the difference between a prototype and a working application
is not dissimilar to that between an experimental reactor and a commercial one.
In the words of Hyman Rickover (one of our patron saints):
“An academic
reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics:
(1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can
be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose. (7) Very little
development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. (8) The
reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.
On the other
hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics:
(1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It requires an
immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is very
expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering
development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.”
More to the
point, most research on AI is barely passing from the stage of prototyping to
the stage of “real” development, so expect some delays until it produces something
resembling fruitful applications. Google autonomous car? A fancy, costly
prototype, which the company is still barely starting to grasp how to scale. “But
it has driven millions of miles with just a handful of “incidents”!” I can hear
you say. Nope, it has driven a few tens of miles around Mountain View, CA,
millions of times, which is a totally different thing. And every time a number
of vehicles had to be sent in advance to do reconnoitering and ensuring there
were no changes in the roads, no unexpected works, no fallen branches or large
pools caused by heavy rain, even some new road signs had to be recorded,
digitized and downloaded into the self-driving vehicle… something nobody seems
to have thought would need to be regularly done all across every single road of
the USA that wanted to be made accessible to the “autonomous” car. They still
have to do 80% of the development to have something remotely marketable, and I
doubt they have neither the financial resources nor the stomach (or the
knowledge) for doing. My prediction is in the next five years they will drop
the whole endeavor without much fanfare, as they are doing with that other much
ballyhooed (back in the time) project of “Google Glasses”.
In the energy
sector, our best, most advanced bet to ever get to a “cheap & clean” source
of energy (Fusion) is ITER, which has not reached the stage of prototype yet,
64 years after the first certified fusion reaction on Earth (the detonation of “Ivy
Mike”, the first hydrogen bomb) and 48 after the completion of the first
Tokamak, and which is not yet a prototype of what a commercial reactor will look
like. But not to worry, you have people confidently asserting that the lack of
real progress in fusion can be more than compensated by (I’m sure you guessed
it) advances in Sw: Energy is transitioning into software. Look, I’ve been hearing this same
claptrap since the 90’s of last century: smart meters, batteries, smaller
producing units, et al will allow us
to both wring more of the current production facilities and transition to
cleaner, more flexible sources. Hasn’t happened in 20 years, and I don’t think
is gonna happen in another 20.
So what
should you make of Brynjolfsson & McAfee stating confidently that we are in
an age of wonder, and that more is yet to come? Just conclude they are deluded,
they have been show a battery of prototypes by some executives within the
industry and, not having managed a big project in their life just did not have
the knowledge to put in context what they were being shown. Most worrisome is
the situation of Bill Gates, that should know better, but still dismisses the
learned scholarship of Robert Gordon and refuses to acknowledge that, as much
as he would like to think otherwise, innovation is not doing much for 99% of
the population. I can only assume he has been so many decades in Microsoft occupied
with running the company (and his foundation since he left the software giant)
that he has forgotten the unfounded optimism of the prototypes he is being
shown all around, and has ended drinking uncritically the Kool-aid of his
peers.
Just remember there is no reason at
all you, dear reader, should be drinking it too. The next time you hear (or
read) about a new gewgaw about to revolutionize the world, apply a healthy dose
of skepticism and remember that, very likely, you are being sold a prototype as
a product close to completion. Do not fall for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment