Rote instruments consist of large numbers of a few types of basic components, each of which performs a rather simple task. The accomplishment of complex tasks is possible through intricate interconnections (programming) between the components. The important principles of operation reside in the program, and by changing the program the instrument can be put to different uses. New problems can be approached in a straightforward, intellectual, bureaucratic, "systems", manner. The solutions will be elementaristic and often a bit clumsy.These categories are not that neat. So, for example, one could have a device that has a large number of simple components which performs a rather simple task (hence looks to be to that degree a rote instrument), but which is also specialized on a particular (type of) task in a particular (type of) situation (hence looks to be to that degree a smart instrument).
Smart instruments are specialized on a particular (type of) task in a particular (type of) situation and capitalize on the peculiarities of the situation and the task, i.e. use shortcuts, etc. They consist of few but specialized components. For solving problems which are repeated very often, smart instruments, if they exist, are more efficient and more economical. They are also likely to be more reliable and durable. Solution of a new problem requires the invention of a new instrument. A straightforward and bureaucratic procedure is not likely to achieve that, since the task is creative and just as much intuitive as intellectual. (Runeson, 1977, pp. 173-4).
Maybe this, however, is not what is important about the distinction. Maybe it is the use of shortcuts. Using a shortcut is a smart thing to do, right?
Do you have an example of such a wonderous device?
ReplyDeleteA computer program that prints "Hello, world."
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe one needs the program to do something a bit more complicated, such as converting temperatures in centigrade to temperatures in fahrenheit, but it looks like computers are instances of rote instruments, but can perform some pretty specialized task. (There is, still, some slack in what is meant by "specialized", but I take it that computers can do things that will pass muster as very specialized.)
ReplyDeleteComputers are rote devices - they can be made to do a large number of things with the same hardware. Programmes are simply instructions for guiding that multi-use hardware to do one thing rather than another thing; that programme is rote too, in the sense it can run on a range of hardware.
ReplyDeleteSmart devices are generally hardware solutions that are built to do one thing really well with no other potential use in mind. A hammer is fairly smart; there's only one function driving the design, and other uses are side effects of that design. I remember my Dad's tool set had half a dozen different hammers of differing sizes and shapes and weights. Sure I could use the biggest one as a doorstop but only because the design pressure that created it entailed it being large and heavy and it's not an optimal door stop (not the best shape, etc).
So, I had guessed that Runeson had computers in mind when he was describing rote mechanisms. But, a computer programmed in one way is specialized, even though there is the sense in which it could be reprogrammed, hence not specialized. But, again, it depends on what counts as "specialized". Is something that computes the partial recursive functions specialized?
ReplyDeleteBut, the examples that are probably more germane are neural circuits.
That said, my principal point regards the "logic" of the categories. It is unclear that these are, for example, mutually exclusive and/or jointly exhaustive.
ReplyDeleteIt did occur to me that a hammer might be a "smart" instrument, but then again it is common to say that someone is as dumb as a hammer. Does Runeson really want to make hammers models of smart mechanisms?
ReplyDeleteCommon language use is a terrible place to start a science from. If I wanted to push a nail into something, a hammer is the smartest device out there.
ReplyDeleteA computer programmed to do one thing might be temporarily a smart device, but only if that programme is smart. The way computers actually work makes it hard for them to ever be smart rather than rote, though.
So, Runeson's idea is that not the hammer itself is smart; it is that using a hammer is a smart thing to use.
ReplyDeleteBut, just because it would be smart to use a hammer does not mean that one will use a hammer, e.g. if one cannot get one. That's why one often uses the handle of a screw driver to tap things in.
No, the hammer is a smart device. Sorry, I hadn't thought that sentence was ambiguous in the way it ended up being.
ReplyDeleteSmart != clever, btw. It's not about whether it's smart to use the hammer vs. the screwdriver; it's whether the hammer is smart in the way it goes about being suitable for hitting nails. There are choices in a hammer's design that make it ideal for that one task.
Smartness is about the way in which the device solves the problem. A rote device plods it's way through algorithmically; the smart device uses heuristics to take advantage of reliable shortcuts. Maybe that's another way to cast this distinction: algorithm (rote) vs. heuristic (smart). Not all heuristic use is smart, though: only using a reliable shortcut is smart.
Well, I'm really pulling your leg when I suggest I care that much about the term "smart".
ReplyDeleteWhat is more troubling to me is how the distinction is not so neat. And, in particular, how it might well break down in actual science when it comes to the classification of brain regions. (See post #3 in the series.)