I guess now we finally know why Babbage never finished building the Analytical Engine.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 92 points 10 months ago (27 children)

I always assumed they were asking if it was rigged.

Like, i can write function sum(a, b) that always returns 10, and impress people how it's correct when I pass in 1,9 and 2,8 and 3,7. But if I pass in 7,7 it'll still return the "right" answer of 10, because it's rigged and not actually doing math.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 126 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    That's a good point, but a few decades of talking to clients has led to a number of conversations like this where they want it to "just work", even if they've input the wrong information.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Clients? Shit happens in my house.

    "My monitor keeps turning off."

    "Ok next time it happens ill look at it and see if i can figure out what is going on."

    "Cant you just fix it?"

    "Fix what? I dont know whats wrong yet."

    "Just fix the monitor."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Legitimately, about 1/3 of the time my mere presence seems to magically fix the issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    There was a thread on Reddit where people likewise noted that having another person try problematic software solved the issue. So one commenter regaled how a dude sidestepped the whole rigmarole by saying to his colleague “look, this thing's broken again”, and then before the other guy could step in, he clicked the thing himself, and it worked.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Sometimes I wonder if people really do affect their environment with their thoughts and attitudes and maybe people who believe in ghosts but don't believe in technology can see ghosts and have their tech fail in unexplainable ways, but the presence of someone who understands and believes in it changes the way it works and doesn't see paranormal shit because they don't believe in it.

    Like my ex believed in paranormal stuff and apparently experienced some herself and also had her tech stuff fail spectacularly in ways I couldn't replicate if I tried but would otherwise work fine for me.

    Though I do have a feeling that if their activity on the PC was recorded, it would actually turn out to be just them lying about (or not even knowing) what they did and the behavior of the tech being as logical as usual, given their actions. Or they just ran into a rare race condition and the correct actions fail like 0.3% of the time.

    But it would be more interesting if it was the other thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I've started defaulting to just saying "yes" with my family and pretending to fix it. I'm actually thankful for the laptop revolution, cause I can just say "it's fucked, buy a new one."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 33 points 10 months ago

    One time my boss asked me to basically solve the Travelling salesman problem.

    My first pass at ot was a simple grab closest neighbor solution, but that left a slightly unoptimal path and my boss asked me to "fix" it. I explained to him why, no, I can't make it both fast amd accurate, pick one, while also showing him that wikipedia page. I was so mad when he said just make it more accurate ignoring now it takes hours to run sometimes only to save 10 seconds of a machine moving.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 10 months ago

    Alternatively, people could genuinely believe the primitive computer is a "thinking machine". So if you fat-finger an input, will the machine know you made a mistake and intuitively correct you? Not unlike asking "Hey, I've got ten days of vacation, can I take two weeks off?" And your coworker - knowing a week is seven days, but you're only referring to business days - responds "Yes".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    No, they were literally asking if the machine was able to return the right result if the person didn't enter it ccorrectly. You know, like how some people expect search engines and AI to give them the answer they want even if they use the wrong words.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Oh like when you type "population of tenton" and it returns "Did you mean Trenton? That population is XYZ"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    Yes, except in the case of Babbage's machine they were asking if putting 1235 instead of 1234 would give the same answer.

    Search engines work that way because of having large large datasets and pattern recognition that can suggest based on typos. Calculators don't do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Yeah but calculator back then was a profession. So if suddenly a machine can replace a complete profession it's at least conprehensible to assume it can do more than it actually can. It's basically the same with AI right now. There is this "overshoot" of what is expected from a new paradigm shifting technology. Similar to how people 100 years ago thought there will be flying cars by now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Helicopters are flying cars.

    It is possible that the question was intended to be about human error checking prior to starting the process of calculating, like noticing a lack of a decimal on a monetary number in a data set, and Babbage misunderstood. That would be a valid question, but isn't how the quote is phrased.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment