Been expecting this. An AI slop equivalent of the likes of https://ciechanow.ski/mechanical-watch/ etc. A similar style or approach in theory, but without any of the care or attention to detail or humanity as what they’re mimicking.
> I'm sure there are plenty of mistakes, please shout them and I'll fix!
What an odd website. It explains everything in incredibly childish terms ("The display you’re reading this on is an absurd grid of exactly [wrong number] tiny, multicoloured light bulbs, known as pixels."), has lots of needless word-salad LLMisms ("Electricity made light effortless. The torch in your phone made darkness optional."), and all in all, feels like a wasted concept because it doesn't really say anything that isn't patently obvious: a phone has a screen and a camera and a CPU... okay? Not exactly mind-blowing.
It doesn't really even do anything to support its thesis that it's the "most intricate machine you've ever held". I don't know, I'm holding a Thinkpad laptop right now and I'm pretty sure it's a superset of what's inside a phone.
Fair dos on the LLMisms. I'm still working on keeping my human voice despite being able to plug any words in to get a smooth AI version.
I'd push back on the childish terms. It is firmly pitched to a general audience, but I think it stands up in both depth and breadth. If you have better examples I'd love to see them.
I'd also square up on the thinkpad. It has larger and more powerful versions of some of the components, but it's also missing a lot of phones ones: the accelerometer, gyroscope, linear resonant actuator, magnetometer, barometer, multiple cameras, probably one with OIS; all in a much smaller device. Very keen to debate, tell me about your laptop!
> Petrol stores 50 times more energy by weight, but it needs to be exploded. A doughnut stores around 15 times, but it needs to be digested.
You left out a very important fact: Combustion requires external oxygen, which is not counted in the denominator when energy-by-mass is typically considered.
So a baby, a seed, any living thing (or even a chunk of something that was once living I suppose) is more complex, which I why I went with 'machine' to exclude those.
I also toyed with saying 'own' rather than 'held', but a modern electric car is basically a beefed up phone with a bunch of driving stuff too, so they wouldn't pass that test.
There are some edge cases: someone upthread held a classic inertial guidance system, and a modern GPU is arguably more intricate, though much more single-function, and good luck getting your hands on one of those anyway!
Humans have a bunch of digital components at their core: DNA, RNA, and peptides. It's not all analog.
Likewise, phones have numerous analog components: microphone, speaker, camera, screen, radio modem, power regulation.
Please don't equate the word "digital" to the notions of being electronic, man-made, or modern. Digital is simply an agreement between a sender and receiver that information is finite and perfectly copyable. (By contrast, analog information is infinite and cannot be copied perfectly.)
The idea is that the smartphone is an incredible entry point to the history of technology for a general audience. A huge range of human needs were met by increasingly sophisticated tools over millennia, then collapsed into a single device over the last 30 years.
I'm sure there are plenty of mistakes, I'd be grateful if you'd let me know any you spot.
Been expecting this. An AI slop equivalent of the likes of https://ciechanow.ski/mechanical-watch/ etc. A similar style or approach in theory, but without any of the care or attention to detail or humanity as what they’re mimicking.
> I'm sure there are plenty of mistakes, please shout them and I'll fix!
Depressing.
What an odd website. It explains everything in incredibly childish terms ("The display you’re reading this on is an absurd grid of exactly [wrong number] tiny, multicoloured light bulbs, known as pixels."), has lots of needless word-salad LLMisms ("Electricity made light effortless. The torch in your phone made darkness optional."), and all in all, feels like a wasted concept because it doesn't really say anything that isn't patently obvious: a phone has a screen and a camera and a CPU... okay? Not exactly mind-blowing.
It doesn't really even do anything to support its thesis that it's the "most intricate machine you've ever held". I don't know, I'm holding a Thinkpad laptop right now and I'm pretty sure it's a superset of what's inside a phone.
You're absolutely right.
I guess this website isn't ready for primetime yet.
Let me rewrite it all only to still have most of the same issues it used to have, and a few extra ones too.
Fair dos on the LLMisms. I'm still working on keeping my human voice despite being able to plug any words in to get a smooth AI version.
I'd push back on the childish terms. It is firmly pitched to a general audience, but I think it stands up in both depth and breadth. If you have better examples I'd love to see them.
I'd also square up on the thinkpad. It has larger and more powerful versions of some of the components, but it's also missing a lot of phones ones: the accelerometer, gyroscope, linear resonant actuator, magnetometer, barometer, multiple cameras, probably one with OIS; all in a much smaller device. Very keen to debate, tell me about your laptop!
I think a phone does beat a thinkpad, but not by much.
> Petrol stores 50 times more energy by weight, but it needs to be exploded. A doughnut stores around 15 times, but it needs to be digested.
You left out a very important fact: Combustion requires external oxygen, which is not counted in the denominator when energy-by-mass is typically considered.
Ah that's a really good point, so it reduces the x times for both petrol and doughnuts. I'll recalculate thank you!
The most intricate machine I've ever held was an inertial guidance system, back when they were hugely complex. My phone isn't even close.
Not enough tokens for some diagrams/illustrations, too?
We're both rubbish at drawing unfortunately
I came here hoping to hear stories of the more intricate machines people have held.
I held a baby. Does that beat a phone?
I put a lot of thought into that problem:
So a baby, a seed, any living thing (or even a chunk of something that was once living I suppose) is more complex, which I why I went with 'machine' to exclude those.
I also toyed with saying 'own' rather than 'held', but a modern electric car is basically a beefed up phone with a bunch of driving stuff too, so they wouldn't pass that test.
There are some edge cases: someone upthread held a classic inertial guidance system, and a modern GPU is arguably more intricate, though much more single-function, and good luck getting your hands on one of those anyway!
Puts a new spin on designed in California, built in China
Beats it for sure, humans are by far the most complex machines, a true marvel of the world. By comparisons, humans make phones look like simple toys.
I don't know, it's different. Humans are analog wonders, phones are digital wonders, both impressive in one of those categories.
Humans have a bunch of digital components at their core: DNA, RNA, and peptides. It's not all analog.
Likewise, phones have numerous analog components: microphone, speaker, camera, screen, radio modem, power regulation.
Please don't equate the word "digital" to the notions of being electronic, man-made, or modern. Digital is simply an agreement between a sender and receiver that information is finite and perfectly copyable. (By contrast, analog information is infinite and cannot be copied perfectly.)
Spectrum analyzer might not be baby-tier but it probably is more intricate than a phone. Not that I've held one.
Any animal beats an engineered machine. Heck, the bacteria in your hand are probably more intricate than a phone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War Battle tested too!
Author here, thanks for sharing.
The idea is that the smartphone is an incredible entry point to the history of technology for a general audience. A huge range of human needs were met by increasingly sophisticated tools over millennia, then collapsed into a single device over the last 30 years.
I'm sure there are plenty of mistakes, I'd be grateful if you'd let me know any you spot.