Forecasting and technological deadlocks
Regarding Thiel 's interview, a quote from Adam Smith immediately comes to mind:
Progress often occurs so slowly and gradually that, over short periods, progress is not only not noticeable, but often there is even a suspicion that the country its industry is becoming poorer, if there is a decline in some industries or some regions, which is sometimes the case, although the country is flourishing in general.
The annual product of the land and labor of England, for example, undoubtedly, increased significantly compared with what was more than a hundred years ago, during the restoration of Charles II. Although nowadays few, I think, doubt it, but during this period rarely passed five years so that no book or brochure appeared, which, thanks to its talent, won some authority from the public and which proved that the wealth of the nation was fast the population is declining, the agriculture is abandoned, the industry is in decline, and trade stops. At the same time, these works were not all party brochures, a perverted product of lies and corruption, many of them were written by very sincere and very thoughtful people who wrote only what they were convinced of, and only because they were convinced of this.
Is there a technological stalemate at the moment? How can this be assessed?
Within the framework of fragmentary logic, I can say that my little 10-year-old machine consumed gasoline as much as a large and powerful modern Cayenne, simply because the latter was designed with oil prices above 100. Progress is evident, although the efficiency of the engine is unlikely to increase significantly during this time .
')
Within the framework of fragmentary logic, I “heard the ringing”, and on the contrary, I can say that the length of the barrel of a firearm has not increased over the past 400 years ... but what follows from this? The revolutionary invention of gunpowder itself had less influence on military affairs than the subsequent evolution of these weapons. Once a firearm was just an expensive and unreliable version of a trebuchet or a crossbow, and traditionally suffered from childhood illnesses of any technology, the powder would dry up, the trunk would break, or the bells had to be smelted ...
Once the turbo engines did not have elasticity and constantly broke down, in formula 1, for example, the turbo engines first won all the qualifications, but did not reach the finish line - but is it possible to draw any conclusions from this?
For me, the math "there is only that which can be measured." In econometrics, all these technological “revolutions” fit into a modest 2% per year growth per capita on average - this was the case 150 years ago and now.
Directly asking the question "how to improve performance" - I do not see the point. If they knew, they would have already raised it; this is how to predict the next few inventions. People are not able to see the future.
In real life, about the path of development of a specific technology, there are, conditionally, 10 crazy ideas, but there are some problems and childhood diseases in the way of realization of each. And the advanced economy has to scatter investments between all of them in order to grope the one way that will actually lead to technological growth, where these childhood illnesses and stoppages can be overcome by reasonable means. This is by definition not a revolution, but an evolution . Therefore, advanced countries are growing slowly, a kind of frail icebreaker poking everywhere, feeling for where the ice is thinner. Catching up this icebreaker is sometimes able to accelerate along the already paved path and up to 10% per year, yes.
The Apollo and Manhattan Projects interviewed (the realities of which are very colorfully written by Feynman), the invention of the Internet (which actually had to provide a reliable, knot-free connection between military units, and did not fulfill its task) , rare examples of relatively successful planned undertakings of the Cold War. We just grew up on it and it seems natural to us, but in fact it is rare.
Most of the technological growth is of a completely different nature - spontaneous private search, evolution in its pure form. "Tinkering", "method of scientific spear", as mentioned by the same Taleb.
The fact that people instead of flying to Mars began to increase the productivity of secretaries and typists is not so bad, less resources will then be needed for a flight to Mars. Attempts to evaluate something with fragmentary logic are completely incomprehensible to me. In general, the performance from the 70s increased or not? It has grown substantially, and it’s too early to talk about a dead end.
Many examples of technological stagnation can be cited, but what does one example mean outside the context of the big picture? I had a thought to propose assessing the power of modern Germany in terms of the number of agricultural slaves, but I was already ahead of the Middle Ages - there were already questions of the Mongols to the French ambassador - “ and how many sheep and rams do you have in France? »I don’t understand the meaning of such fragmentary assessments.
In my opinion, tautology is all about the impasse. Yes, the state plan cannot plan inventions and discoveries. But we already knew this, and this is not a reason for conclusions about the possibility of growth. A distinctive feature of the development of the last 200 years is the constant production of technology. Not cast iron, and not sneakers - but technologies. Cast iron and iPhones - only a consequence. And these technologies are produced in an unexpected, evolutionary way of “poking”, trial and error. The result is there, but it’s still possible to predict future technologies like this:
“The plane, of course, is an interesting toy, but absolutely useless for the army” (Marshal Foch, 1911)
“It would be naive to hope to use the energy of the nucleus of an atom” (Rutherford)
“A machine gun is a cumbersome, complex device for meaningless squandering of cartridges” (official position of the Chinese commanders)
“I confess that in 1901 I said that a person will not fly for the next 50 years. Since then, I have lost confidence in myself and avoided speaking out on the topic of the future. ” Wilbur Wright, pioneer of aviation.
“Nothing can replace a horse, the car is just a novelty - a passing fan-boor.” The head of the Michigan Savings Bank, discouraging Horace Rackham (lawyer Henry Ford) from investing money in the company Ford Motor Company.
“Who the hell is interested in listening to the voices of actors?” Harry Warner, Warner Brothers film company. 1927
"There is no reason for individuals to have a computer at home." Kenneth Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation. 1977
"Regardless of any scientific progress in the future, man will never land on the moon." Dr. Lee de Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube. 1967
"The weight of the computer may in the future be one and a half tons." An article in the journal Popular Mikeniks, devoted to the prospects of computer technology. 1949
“We do not like the sound of their music. Guitar bands go out of style. ” The record company Decca Records about its decision to reject the collaboration with the Beatles. 1962
“I must confess that I don’t imagine that any submarine would pass the test — its crew would suffocate and the ship would be carried by sea.” HG Wells, English writer. 1901
“Television will not last longer than six months in any of the markets. People get tired every night to peer into a plywood box. ” Darryl Zanuck, head of the 20 Century Fox. 1946
And for dessert:
“Everything that could be invented has already been invented” (Charles Dewell, US Commissioner for Patents, 1899 (!!!))
Progress often occurs so slowly and gradually that, over short periods, progress is not only not noticeable, but often there is even a suspicion that the country its industry is becoming poorer, if there is a decline in some industries or some regions, which is sometimes the case, although the country is flourishing in general.
The annual product of the land and labor of England, for example, undoubtedly, increased significantly compared with what was more than a hundred years ago, during the restoration of Charles II. Although nowadays few, I think, doubt it, but during this period rarely passed five years so that no book or brochure appeared, which, thanks to its talent, won some authority from the public and which proved that the wealth of the nation was fast the population is declining, the agriculture is abandoned, the industry is in decline, and trade stops. At the same time, these works were not all party brochures, a perverted product of lies and corruption, many of them were written by very sincere and very thoughtful people who wrote only what they were convinced of, and only because they were convinced of this.
Is there a technological stalemate at the moment? How can this be assessed?
Within the framework of fragmentary logic, I can say that my little 10-year-old machine consumed gasoline as much as a large and powerful modern Cayenne, simply because the latter was designed with oil prices above 100. Progress is evident, although the efficiency of the engine is unlikely to increase significantly during this time .
')
Within the framework of fragmentary logic, I “heard the ringing”, and on the contrary, I can say that the length of the barrel of a firearm has not increased over the past 400 years ... but what follows from this? The revolutionary invention of gunpowder itself had less influence on military affairs than the subsequent evolution of these weapons. Once a firearm was just an expensive and unreliable version of a trebuchet or a crossbow, and traditionally suffered from childhood illnesses of any technology, the powder would dry up, the trunk would break, or the bells had to be smelted ...
Once the turbo engines did not have elasticity and constantly broke down, in formula 1, for example, the turbo engines first won all the qualifications, but did not reach the finish line - but is it possible to draw any conclusions from this?
For me, the math "there is only that which can be measured." In econometrics, all these technological “revolutions” fit into a modest 2% per year growth per capita on average - this was the case 150 years ago and now.
Directly asking the question "how to improve performance" - I do not see the point. If they knew, they would have already raised it; this is how to predict the next few inventions. People are not able to see the future.
In real life, about the path of development of a specific technology, there are, conditionally, 10 crazy ideas, but there are some problems and childhood diseases in the way of realization of each. And the advanced economy has to scatter investments between all of them in order to grope the one way that will actually lead to technological growth, where these childhood illnesses and stoppages can be overcome by reasonable means. This is by definition not a revolution, but an evolution . Therefore, advanced countries are growing slowly, a kind of frail icebreaker poking everywhere, feeling for where the ice is thinner. Catching up this icebreaker is sometimes able to accelerate along the already paved path and up to 10% per year, yes.
The Apollo and Manhattan Projects interviewed (the realities of which are very colorfully written by Feynman), the invention of the Internet (which actually had to provide a reliable, knot-free connection between military units, and did not fulfill its task) , rare examples of relatively successful planned undertakings of the Cold War. We just grew up on it and it seems natural to us, but in fact it is rare.
Most of the technological growth is of a completely different nature - spontaneous private search, evolution in its pure form. "Tinkering", "method of scientific spear", as mentioned by the same Taleb.
The fact that people instead of flying to Mars began to increase the productivity of secretaries and typists is not so bad, less resources will then be needed for a flight to Mars. Attempts to evaluate something with fragmentary logic are completely incomprehensible to me. In general, the performance from the 70s increased or not? It has grown substantially, and it’s too early to talk about a dead end.
Many examples of technological stagnation can be cited, but what does one example mean outside the context of the big picture? I had a thought to propose assessing the power of modern Germany in terms of the number of agricultural slaves, but I was already ahead of the Middle Ages - there were already questions of the Mongols to the French ambassador - “ and how many sheep and rams do you have in France? »I don’t understand the meaning of such fragmentary assessments.
In my opinion, tautology is all about the impasse. Yes, the state plan cannot plan inventions and discoveries. But we already knew this, and this is not a reason for conclusions about the possibility of growth. A distinctive feature of the development of the last 200 years is the constant production of technology. Not cast iron, and not sneakers - but technologies. Cast iron and iPhones - only a consequence. And these technologies are produced in an unexpected, evolutionary way of “poking”, trial and error. The result is there, but it’s still possible to predict future technologies like this:
“The plane, of course, is an interesting toy, but absolutely useless for the army” (Marshal Foch, 1911)
“It would be naive to hope to use the energy of the nucleus of an atom” (Rutherford)
“A machine gun is a cumbersome, complex device for meaningless squandering of cartridges” (official position of the Chinese commanders)
“I confess that in 1901 I said that a person will not fly for the next 50 years. Since then, I have lost confidence in myself and avoided speaking out on the topic of the future. ” Wilbur Wright, pioneer of aviation.
“Nothing can replace a horse, the car is just a novelty - a passing fan-boor.” The head of the Michigan Savings Bank, discouraging Horace Rackham (lawyer Henry Ford) from investing money in the company Ford Motor Company.
“Who the hell is interested in listening to the voices of actors?” Harry Warner, Warner Brothers film company. 1927
"There is no reason for individuals to have a computer at home." Kenneth Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation. 1977
"Regardless of any scientific progress in the future, man will never land on the moon." Dr. Lee de Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube. 1967
"The weight of the computer may in the future be one and a half tons." An article in the journal Popular Mikeniks, devoted to the prospects of computer technology. 1949
“We do not like the sound of their music. Guitar bands go out of style. ” The record company Decca Records about its decision to reject the collaboration with the Beatles. 1962
“I must confess that I don’t imagine that any submarine would pass the test — its crew would suffocate and the ship would be carried by sea.” HG Wells, English writer. 1901
“Television will not last longer than six months in any of the markets. People get tired every night to peer into a plywood box. ” Darryl Zanuck, head of the 20 Century Fox. 1946
And for dessert:
“Everything that could be invented has already been invented” (Charles Dewell, US Commissioner for Patents, 1899 (!!!))
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/285864/
All Articles