Brute Force (Part 2): hail the monkeys

Great ideas originate in the muscles

Thomas Edison

The phenomenal increase in computing power in recent times has allowed previously fanciful methods of attacking a problem to become feasible. Inspiration is no longer as prized as it once was since the perspiration can be off-loaded to the computer to silently toil away.

In many ways, this is a triumph for the monkey over Shakespeare; a case of the ape getting one over the bard. The famous analogy used to explain the concept of infinity is apt to explain the victory of brute force over sophistication too.

If a room full of an infinite number of monkeys (not a room I'd like to spend much time in) were each to bash away at a key board then they would surely come up with all of the works of Shakespeare, an infinite number of times indeed. This is a demonstration of the limiting case of a brute force approach ad nausium. Monkeys are representative in this scenario of unsophistication, of blind trial and error, or truly random attempts. But given enough monkey power, perhaps not an infinite amount, then we may still get something that resembles a half decent play. Or Jesus Christ Super Star, perhaps. This concession to approximation can be found everywhere in modern mathematics, statistics and computing and the results are often good enough for whatever question they are required to answer. In this analogy, monkeys equate to computing power, the blue collar work force of science. When monkeys are cheap labour why not just ring-up the job centre and hire some more, rather than spending time and effort trying to train one up. Monkey creative writing classes have taken a detrimental hit with this glut in cack-handed typists.

So, you may well ask is, what’s the big problem? Style has been usurped by strength but if it gets the job done as well or even better than before, isn’t that a good thing?

The answer to this question is not black and white, as is often the way.

On one side, the old way of doing things, which we’ll simply call the elegant way from now on, provided a deeper understanding of the problem. It forced us into delving deep and seeing thing that perhaps the cruder approaches wouldn’t. Being made to compare with other problems or think outside of the box has revealed the kind of connections and understanding that only comes from serious brain work.

On the other hand, simply getting down and getting on with it has allowed previously nightmare inducing problems to be combatted and defeated. Scientific impasses are not what they used to be. It’s fair to say that both approaches have their place. Like some slippery politician there really is no straight answer to which one to use. It depends. It’s just important to not get attached to doing things one way over the other without appreciating which tool is best for the job at hand. Sometime cracking a nut with a sledgehammer is just silly, unless the nut is as big as a house. But then maybe in the latter case we should really be worried about how big the squirrel is.