3 ms·
> It's not true that there's nothing new under the sun. There are some domains where there's almost nothing new. But there's a big difference between nothing an
by ballenf 9y ago
> It's not true that there's nothing new under the sun. There are some domains where there's almost nothing new. But there's a big difference between nothing and almost nothing, when it's multiplied by the area under the sun.
I found that statement the most insightful of the essay. Helped me resolve some cognitive dissonance.
Whether there really are totally new things and not just existing things in new packaging depends on which level of abstraction you stop at with when analyzing. For example, at a very high level you could say that the Internet as a whole is really just a very advanced/efficient printing press. (And automation like the printing press or assembly line, just efficiently organized production.)
That level of abstraction may be less than helpful, unless there are insights to be gleaned from where the internet is going by looking at printing press technology. Their impacts on empowering the masses are similar, but they each encouraged/enabled network effects to consolidate much power (newspapers and goog/fb) and thereby effectively countering much of the effect.
- wcarss 9y agoI agree, this statement seems like the most interesting one in the essay. It reminds me of expected value calculations: extremely low probability events of tremendously high impact could actually out-rate moderately probable events of moderate impact in terms of how concerned you should be with them. Assigning meaningful probabilities and impact values can be tricky though, which adds a whole layer of complexity and hand-waving to the problem. This is where discussions of nuclear war, strong AI, nazi-oriented political resurgences, geothermal storms, epidemics, etc. can really go off the rails in my opinion: two people can separately evaluate "worst-case scenario" as very different realities, assigning very different intuited impact-values, and also assign very different probability values. Even if they think about these things from an expected-value perspective, a discussion between them becomes at least a 2-variable linear equation, and the odds of even understanding each other are stretched, let alone finding the same x and y and agreeing upon what that means for the actions we should take in response. Graham's point here on the positive side though is a refreshing step outside of that domain. An idea recycled, if broadly applicable enough, only needs a hint of novelty. It gives me some hope for being able to come up with useful things.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jdmichal 9y agoI was thinking recently about idea cross-pollination, and that kind of hits the same gap. Most of the time, it doesn't really lead anywhere interesting. But every once in a while, you get that perfect combination of a few different domains that just explodes.