<I>"But the Ming rulers... handed innovation to imperial bureaucrats."</I> - Stephen
I've seen this happen twice in my lifetime, largely the result of the deflationary effect of the Internet and Moore's law.
When I was deciding on a career I thought it would be good to get into television. I learned the craft on Sony VTRs, CMX editors and Quantel Paintboxes. When I got my first job I was surprised to see a Commodore Amiga in the edit bay, producing very good looking graphics at a fraction of the cost of the "professional" equipment. A few years later I was in charge of purchasing for the cable advertising company I worked for, and bought a complete edit bay in a PowerMac G4 tower -complete with 36GB(!) of hard drive storage. The transport medium was still videotape. But then our "on-air" equipment converted to digital and we could send ads around town using this new stuff called optical fiber... for a very high up-front price of course, but it meant we could update ads daily instead of weekly and no one had to "sneaker net" the tapes out to the headend.
The production equipment continued to get cheaper and cheaper, but the distribution bottleneck continued (although the explosion of digital broadcast television had the potential to open up thousands of more content hours to creatives the gatekeepers (still firmly in charge thanks to their FCC licenses) chose to recycle the back catalogue with re-run channels like METV and USA Network). It took YouTube and Netflix to break the oligopoly, and even they keep a pretty tight hand on the pursestrings.
Meanwhile the cost of sending a bit from one part of the world to another has dropped by over 99%. The result has been a pretty mixed bag, with the free with ads supported model acting like the new gatekeeper and a general depressing of wages for producers and talent, albeit with far more opportunity for earning a living. The chokepoint of the ad broker becomes the new regulatory block, an easy place to squeeze producers.
The same thing is playing out in the small drone space. Instead of innovators breaking the old models for making money in aviation, the old guard is pushing on the FAA to lock down the airspace and keep the status quo. After all, they have a lot invested in their systems and don't want to watch it (or their skills) devalue because of technological advances.
As long as quantum computing (and AI) stays at the establishment level of deployment it won't amount to much of anything. Maybe the CIA will find it useful, and maybe Google will eek out a few more dollars in slightly better/faster search results, but I doubt we'll see the big gains of past innovation, at least not until some researcher jumps off the luxury liner of a Google job and chooses to live on a dingy.
The one thing that I hear in the software world is, “I don’t have time for that.” I am already hearing it less now. Documentation? The AI does that now. Testing? It does that now too. It lets us focus on the more nuanced and detailed aspects of the craft.
Excellent article but allow me to suggest a correction. Near the end you write, "Matt Ridley’s new book, a follow-up to The Rational Optimist, argues the future is still going to be amazing, but not as amazing as it could be if we keep getting in our own way."
The end of that sentence should read, "if we'd stop getting in our own way."
While I wish the article referred to were included in order to know who the 'we' is in "you write 'Matt Ridley's new book ... argues the future is going to be amazing but not as amazing ... as it could be if we keep getting in our own ways.' " ( I added s to way to agree with we unless this way is plural understood in itself. ) While not quite e e cummings I am a friend of as little punctuation as possible, leave spaces rather than "s. Then with but being a conjunction I see no reason to include commas when conjunction words are already there. And I use spaces around single words referred to instead of more "s ( Although these may be condensed to not exist once sent ) Thinking to look up e e cummings to learn spelling I came across a mention of his play Santa Claus which 'deals with the increasing materialism and lust for knowledge around him ... However, the love Santa has for his family allows him to reject these things.' A good the world is too much with us kind of thought too, one which reminded me of a thoroughly charming description I believe M(onsieur) Ridley* rather than someone else wrote of his children. M McBride as well sounds like he is a fun father from his couple comments. I do wish he would tell us about the little girl potentially with a brain tumor was it. I am not sure why what I assume is 'if we would stop getting in our own way' (assuming it is would rather than could being omitted) is an improvement over or has the same meaning or is as accurate as the future could be amazing sort of thing 'if we keep getting in our own way(s).'Then there is 'the future is still going to be amazing'of M Ridley which is what I believe. That is people like the eager ROs are going to make all creations come about regardless of who shall drag their feet, put cogs in some wheels. Most of all slowly carefully regardless of which slow cause can be wise ways. This reminding me of Burrough's display machine c 1961 sorting checks with the side removed so visitors could see the sorting when all of a sudden the checks by the seeming endless 100's went all over the floor. The person in charge unable to stop the miss sorting fast enough. Best no matter how amazing all shall one day be best to have few progress defeating Three Mile Islands if slow and easy makes this possible ; )
*Omitting title as believe this is Lord Ridley's preference aiming to please ; )
The actual reason to not buy any FI car to take one at most two tiny children to school if one wishes can afford this is they are not street legal at least in these USA
Abu Dabai > CA sounds like lots of other half way round Earth in Musk speak miserable zillion mile flights Miracle to me is no refueling stops on such flights as one once did in Gander simply flying London Detroit in 1950's
Well, AI might improve schooling, but today in Chicago (for example) there are literally dozens of schools where not a single student can read or do math at grade level. I suspect the problem isn’t technological.
I hope the real challenge will be finding enough skilled workers but if the last thirty years are any guide it’s the disruption from creative destruction that causes serious societal problems, see US politics etc.
The fatal flaw in your argument is unlimited growth and demand with declining populations and finite resources there are limits to growth. This is a great thing, having fewer people enjoying more resources will allow for less employment and more time to do important things, like playing with your children.
"A qubit can be on and off at the same time. This allows a quantum computer to process exponentially more information."
How?
While I thoroughly enjoy reading these pieces, a bit more information would be helpful for the broader audience. Its not enough to read that AI can learn and improve the accuracy of responses, how it does this and why this isn't just faster more powerful computers would help. Seeing these superstructures that take up 10 city blocks all over the place reminds me of the early days of computers where buildings were devoted to hardware that now fits on your wrist.
Comparing quantum computing to classical computing isn’t especially enlightening. They do similar things but, one is not a replacement for the other. I suspect all today’s quantum computing startups are wildly over valued because it will take big money to actually build useful machines much like fusion power or nuclear fission power in the past.
My own experience, in computing (from programing computers in college by means of punch cards, to the ease of getting any information you want from the internet by typing) to robotics
(from my personal experience in the automotive industry, which went from unloading an automotive aluminum die cast machine to where today the term robotics includes cars, complex machines that previously only a human could do and an infinite number of other activities).
All of which has led to more jobs than ever , thus surpassing the worlds growth in population. "The only fear is fear itself"
Wow, the part about quantum computing being an overrated mirage really hit home. That line about VCs appearing after three mentions? Spot on. As someone passionate about teh, especially AI, I often feel the hype can give you whiplash, like trying a new Pilates move. Love your grounded perspective!
<I>"But the Ming rulers... handed innovation to imperial bureaucrats."</I> - Stephen
I've seen this happen twice in my lifetime, largely the result of the deflationary effect of the Internet and Moore's law.
When I was deciding on a career I thought it would be good to get into television. I learned the craft on Sony VTRs, CMX editors and Quantel Paintboxes. When I got my first job I was surprised to see a Commodore Amiga in the edit bay, producing very good looking graphics at a fraction of the cost of the "professional" equipment. A few years later I was in charge of purchasing for the cable advertising company I worked for, and bought a complete edit bay in a PowerMac G4 tower -complete with 36GB(!) of hard drive storage. The transport medium was still videotape. But then our "on-air" equipment converted to digital and we could send ads around town using this new stuff called optical fiber... for a very high up-front price of course, but it meant we could update ads daily instead of weekly and no one had to "sneaker net" the tapes out to the headend.
The production equipment continued to get cheaper and cheaper, but the distribution bottleneck continued (although the explosion of digital broadcast television had the potential to open up thousands of more content hours to creatives the gatekeepers (still firmly in charge thanks to their FCC licenses) chose to recycle the back catalogue with re-run channels like METV and USA Network). It took YouTube and Netflix to break the oligopoly, and even they keep a pretty tight hand on the pursestrings.
Meanwhile the cost of sending a bit from one part of the world to another has dropped by over 99%. The result has been a pretty mixed bag, with the free with ads supported model acting like the new gatekeeper and a general depressing of wages for producers and talent, albeit with far more opportunity for earning a living. The chokepoint of the ad broker becomes the new regulatory block, an easy place to squeeze producers.
The same thing is playing out in the small drone space. Instead of innovators breaking the old models for making money in aviation, the old guard is pushing on the FAA to lock down the airspace and keep the status quo. After all, they have a lot invested in their systems and don't want to watch it (or their skills) devalue because of technological advances.
As long as quantum computing (and AI) stays at the establishment level of deployment it won't amount to much of anything. Maybe the CIA will find it useful, and maybe Google will eek out a few more dollars in slightly better/faster search results, but I doubt we'll see the big gains of past innovation, at least not until some researcher jumps off the luxury liner of a Google job and chooses to live on a dingy.
Our first $8,000 IBM PC c 1982 had 50K ; )
The one thing that I hear in the software world is, “I don’t have time for that.” I am already hearing it less now. Documentation? The AI does that now. Testing? It does that now too. It lets us focus on the more nuanced and detailed aspects of the craft.
loved this one
"Why don’t we all get a full-body scan as part of our annual check-up?"
Because the entire medical system would collapse under the weight of false positives.
Excellent article but allow me to suggest a correction. Near the end you write, "Matt Ridley’s new book, a follow-up to The Rational Optimist, argues the future is still going to be amazing, but not as amazing as it could be if we keep getting in our own way."
The end of that sentence should read, "if we'd stop getting in our own way."
Good point. Words matter.
While I wish the article referred to were included in order to know who the 'we' is in "you write 'Matt Ridley's new book ... argues the future is going to be amazing but not as amazing ... as it could be if we keep getting in our own ways.' " ( I added s to way to agree with we unless this way is plural understood in itself. ) While not quite e e cummings I am a friend of as little punctuation as possible, leave spaces rather than "s. Then with but being a conjunction I see no reason to include commas when conjunction words are already there. And I use spaces around single words referred to instead of more "s ( Although these may be condensed to not exist once sent ) Thinking to look up e e cummings to learn spelling I came across a mention of his play Santa Claus which 'deals with the increasing materialism and lust for knowledge around him ... However, the love Santa has for his family allows him to reject these things.' A good the world is too much with us kind of thought too, one which reminded me of a thoroughly charming description I believe M(onsieur) Ridley* rather than someone else wrote of his children. M McBride as well sounds like he is a fun father from his couple comments. I do wish he would tell us about the little girl potentially with a brain tumor was it. I am not sure why what I assume is 'if we would stop getting in our own way' (assuming it is would rather than could being omitted) is an improvement over or has the same meaning or is as accurate as the future could be amazing sort of thing 'if we keep getting in our own way(s).'Then there is 'the future is still going to be amazing'of M Ridley which is what I believe. That is people like the eager ROs are going to make all creations come about regardless of who shall drag their feet, put cogs in some wheels. Most of all slowly carefully regardless of which slow cause can be wise ways. This reminding me of Burrough's display machine c 1961 sorting checks with the side removed so visitors could see the sorting when all of a sudden the checks by the seeming endless 100's went all over the floor. The person in charge unable to stop the miss sorting fast enough. Best no matter how amazing all shall one day be best to have few progress defeating Three Mile Islands if slow and easy makes this possible ; )
*Omitting title as believe this is Lord Ridley's preference aiming to please ; )
The actual reason to not buy any FI car to take one at most two tiny children to school if one wishes can afford this is they are not street legal at least in these USA
Abu Dabai > CA sounds like lots of other half way round Earth in Musk speak miserable zillion mile flights Miracle to me is no refueling stops on such flights as one once did in Gander simply flying London Detroit in 1950's
Well, AI might improve schooling, but today in Chicago (for example) there are literally dozens of schools where not a single student can read or do math at grade level. I suspect the problem isn’t technological.
I hope the real challenge will be finding enough skilled workers but if the last thirty years are any guide it’s the disruption from creative destruction that causes serious societal problems, see US politics etc.
The fatal flaw in your argument is unlimited growth and demand with declining populations and finite resources there are limits to growth. This is a great thing, having fewer people enjoying more resources will allow for less employment and more time to do important things, like playing with your children.
"A qubit can be on and off at the same time. This allows a quantum computer to process exponentially more information."
How?
While I thoroughly enjoy reading these pieces, a bit more information would be helpful for the broader audience. Its not enough to read that AI can learn and improve the accuracy of responses, how it does this and why this isn't just faster more powerful computers would help. Seeing these superstructures that take up 10 city blocks all over the place reminds me of the early days of computers where buildings were devoted to hardware that now fits on your wrist.
Comparing quantum computing to classical computing isn’t especially enlightening. They do similar things but, one is not a replacement for the other. I suspect all today’s quantum computing startups are wildly over valued because it will take big money to actually build useful machines much like fusion power or nuclear fission power in the past.
> When technology makes something faster and cheaper, we don’t do less of it. We do more.
Yeah. Also allows for more creativity input and process improvement
I've been replaced by automation a couple times. Turned me into an entrepreneur automating businesses
My own experience, in computing (from programing computers in college by means of punch cards, to the ease of getting any information you want from the internet by typing) to robotics
(from my personal experience in the automotive industry, which went from unloading an automotive aluminum die cast machine to where today the term robotics includes cars, complex machines that previously only a human could do and an infinite number of other activities).
All of which has led to more jobs than ever , thus surpassing the worlds growth in population. "The only fear is fear itself"
Wow, the part about quantum computing being an overrated mirage really hit home. That line about VCs appearing after three mentions? Spot on. As someone passionate about teh, especially AI, I often feel the hype can give you whiplash, like trying a new Pilates move. Love your grounded perspective!