Weak attempt at an appeal to authority argument. None of those people dispute the FACTS I cited, facts which disprove
-
shoobe01 — 11 years ago(January 16, 2015 07:30 PM)
AMAZING this discussion has gone on this long. Because the OP is unequivocally, demonstrably wrong. This is not a film thing only, not a destructive logic thing, but that there are quite a few people who go to work every day, and probably billions spent each year on the very principle that computers (and especially systems of systems as in the film) are unreliable.
Not prone to failure. Not regularly failing. In a constant state of failure. You really haven't noticed your phone's apps crash and behave oddly, like five times a day? And your phone is not that complex. Don't count operations per second as "more complex." It is designed after decades of CS knowledge to be protected from spurious inputs, and bad data. The computational complexity is relatively limited.
SAGE (what the computer and control and display system in the film was supposed to be, but it was top, top secret for decades and was actually way cooler than this) was pretty much the first big CS project ever. Things we do today about project management were invented here. And it was with horribly unreliable tubes, and took all sorts of sensor data (raw, but for noise over the thousands of miles of phone lines) and had to send signals to missiles and bombers and bases all over. Very complex even by today's standards.
You will say, if you were to put forth a logical argument, "when's the last time you couldn't buy something because Amazon was down?" Never, I agree. Why? Because of Resilience Engineering (look it up if you were a serious CS guy, I'd just say go to the latest ACM journal or anything similar as it's regularly discussed, but Google will do). Servers are constantly breaking; dozens a day. Disks fail; hundreds a day. Data centers get cut off the network, images get corrupted and whole banks of systems are unusable.
This happens. Constantly. Much of it they don't even try to stop from happening. It is the way things are. Instead, they seek to stop the /consequences/ from being catastrophic. The systems are resilient, are resist falling into a new order (or disorder) but continue operating. Maybe at reduced capacity, but they are running.
The theory of this goes back to the tube computer era, but it's absolutely true today. All computers are arbitrarily complex, cannot be adequately modeled and predicted, and induce failures. Systems of systems are in a constant state of failure. Look it up. -
Special-Order-937 — 11 years ago(February 24, 2015 02:30 AM)
I don't agree with the OP either. To me, complex over simple wasn't the premise of the film or even one of the premises. It was delegating decision making and responsibility to a computer, where not even the President can over-ride it. The complexity was mentioned in the context of things happening quickly, of computers making decisions before we've realised it's made the decision based on a system error. To me, this film gets more relevant every year because of our reliance on computers. And more complex systems are more prone to failure than simple ones. I had a an old car for 11 years, my partner had a swanky automatic. My car has been to the garage to replace tyres, to change plugs, belts and for the usual service. My partner's has been in for the same, plus: because the electric windows brokedown, the central locking chip stopped working, for faulty sensors on the exhaust emissions. A more complex system is more prone to failure. As shoobe01 said it's the contingencies / redundancies that come into play to counter-act those failures, but they are happening, every day. It makes the situation in Fail Safe something not beyond the realms of possibility today.
-
robert3750 — 10 years ago(April 12, 2015 02:43 PM)
Cars are mechanical devices, not electronic ones. Also, citing an anecdote of your car's reliability compared to your partner's is not proof of complex vs. simple. Reliability varies according to make, some cars just happen to be lemons, etc. You'd have to show industry data. Is a 1974 Buick really more reliable than a 2014 Toyota? Based on what industry data (not anecdotes)?
-
robert3750 — 10 years ago(April 12, 2015 02:28 PM)
Strawman argument. No one ever said computers never fail. The contention was that more complex computers are more prone to failure than less complex ones. Show me the failure rates of old tube computers (less complex) compared to mid 60s transistor computers (more complex). Show me the failure rates of mid 60s transistor computers (less complex) compared to today's computers (more complex).
-
blackjackxxx — 11 years ago(December 28, 2014 08:16 AM)
I don't think the film was trying to compare technologies or reliability. The message, clearly to me, was machines propelling decisions faster than the ability to react calmly, or recall a decision based on subsequent, or more accurate, information.
Push the button, Max -
pjmcgill142 — 10 years ago(February 07, 2016 02:20 AM)
Lindbergh's choice of a single engine aircraft points to this issue. As a twin engine aircraft couldn't have completed the voyage with one engine out, he chose a single engine aircraft simply because the probability of failure was much lower with the one engine.
-
degree7 — 10 years ago(September 08, 2015 01:32 AM)
That wasn't really the expert's point. What he was actually saying was "the more complex the system, the more catastrophic the failure." The small error created a system failure that cascaded through every avenue. The problem was not only that the computer system was more complex, but that the relationship between Moscow and Washington was more complicated due to human interference. The solution should have been simple: we're sorry it was an accident, please don't retaliate. More over, they should have been able to recall the bombers, but they had trained the pilots to ignore direct orders due to Soviet tricks. The threat of mutually assured destruction tied precariously to such a system meant that only a small mistake could set off a chain reaction. The president even says at the end that the blame is placed squarely on human beings for devising it. Complex systems fail in complex ways that aren't as easy to fix as simple ones.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here. -
robert3750 — 10 years ago(September 08, 2015 06:35 PM)
If you want to say "what he really meant was" or "his actual point was", go ahead. I was just commenting on what he actually said, namely that more complex
machines
are more prone to failure. He said nothing about "Moscow-Washington relations", or human systems. Again, I simply pointed out that his statement about
machines
is wrong, because of the examples I gave that contradict it. -
degree7 — 10 years ago(September 08, 2015 06:54 PM)
I understand, but you also said that the movie doesn't squarely place the blame on human error, which is false. The movie is about our mistakes, not those of machines. The stuff about political relationships was read in between the lines, and related to chaos theory.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here. -
robert3750 — 10 years ago(September 09, 2015 10:48 AM)
Again though, you can say "the movie is really about human fallibity, etc.", but the fact is that the incident
as shown in the film
is caused by a
machine failure.
Dr. Strangelove does a better job of placing blame
directly
on people. -
degree7 — 10 years ago(September 09, 2015 12:11 PM)
Except the movie does place the blame
directly
on people. The incident might have been instigated by the machine failure, but it was human error that allowed the event to come to pass.
Russian Premier: This was no one's fault.
The President: I don't agree.
Russian Premier: No human being is at fault. No one is to be blamed.
The President: We're to blame, both of us. We let our machines get out of hand.
Russian Premier: Still, it was an accident.
The President: What do we say to the millions killed? Accidents will happen? I won't accept that.
Russian Premier: All I know is that as long as we have weapons-
The President: All I know is that men are responsible; we're responsible for what happens to us. Today we had a taste of the future, do we learn from it or go on the way we have? What do we say to the dead?
Russian Premier: If we are men, we must say it won't happen again. But is it possible? With all that stands between us?
The President: We put it there Mr Chairman, and we're not helpless. What we put between us we can remove.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here. -
robert3750 — 10 years ago(September 14, 2015 10:49 AM)
The President: We're to blame, both of us. We let our machines get out of hand.
There's no talk in
Dr. Strangelove
about "machines getting out of hand". The blame is placed directly on a loony General acting according to Plan R, which was authorized by the President. Even the Doomsday Machine operates exactly as its human designers intended. -
robert3750 — 10 years ago(September 14, 2015 11:49 AM)
The President: We're to blame, both of us. We let our machines get out of hand.
There's no talk in
Dr. Strangelove
about "machines getting out of hand". The blame is placed directly on a loony General acting according to Plan R, which was authorized by the President. Even the Doomsday Machine operates exactly as its human designers intended. -
sage2112 — 10 years ago(September 19, 2015 12:17 AM)
I think the point he was making was that the more complex the machines are, the harder it is for a human to step in if/when needed when something does go wrong.
Really you liked Strangelove better? Are you just more into comedies? Like, did you prefer Airplane! to Airport! ? -
robert3750 — 10 years ago(September 19, 2015 10:47 AM)
More complex machines can be more difficult to deal with, but they're nothing but a tool. The ultimate responsibility ALWAYS lies with humansOUR choices. Saying that the "machines got out of hand" dodges this. That's one of the things I like about Dr. Strangelove. There is NO talk about "machine failure", or "machines getting out of hand". EVERYTHING is focused on the choices that PEOPLE make.
Dr. Strangelove vs. Airplane! is a poor comparison. The latter is pure farce played strictly for laughs. Strangelove is satire, using comedy to comment on a very serious subject (nuclear war). In fact, Kubrick started to make a serious movie, but decided that a comedic tone was more effective. His decision was a brilliant one. What better way to point out the insanity of nuclear war than to show someone who is literally insane as the instigator?
Dr. Strangelove IS the superior film, and it has nothing to do with being "more into comedies". It is ranked number 39 on the AFI's top 100 films,37 on the Hollywood Reporter's list of favorite films by industry people, 42 on the BBC.com top 100, and number 50 right HERE (IMDB top 250). I think that's a damn good consensus. Fail Safe appears NOWHERE on those lists.