4 ms·

Hilbert’s list

68 points by slyall 8y ago

z3phyr 8y ago
We need a microprocessor revolution of energy storage and dissipation (getting smaller but storing twice more every two years kind) to actually fulfill most of the other things in the list.
dmurray 8y ago
This is a shitty replacement for Hilbert's list. Hilbert had 25 problems in mathematics: when you solved them, you knew you had, or at worst you would wait for peer review to confirm you got it. No one will ever solve, to pick one, "Alternatives to paid labor for most humans". It's already happened for some people, will never happen for some people, and won't necessarily be a good thing if it happens for many people. The items on this list are overwhelmingly people and political problems and - even if they are laudable goals in general - don't belong in the same breath as Hilbert's.
- dvt 8y ago
  Let alone that some are just dubiously ambiguous. What does "transmutation of matter to different elements and structures" mean? We've already done this via hydrogen bombs and particle accelerators, it's just very (very) expensive or very (very) destructive. Or does the author mean something different -- maybe more like the alchemy of the Dark Ages? What does the author even mean by "structures"?
  - Alex3917 8y ago
    I don't think he necessarily means elements in the chemistry sense of the word. By elements he probably just means new physical materials (e.g. graphene), and by structures he's probably talking about things like nanobots or 3D chips. (I could be completely wrong, but just a guess.)
- valar_m 8y ago
  I don't think his point is to replace Hilbert's list. I think his point is to think about specific problems that are worth the effort to solve. It seems like he made an effort to distinguish his list (and the exercise itself) from Hilbert's: > Technology doesn’t have to be high-tech. It can simply be the hard work of finding generous solutions to important problems, big or small. > Our next steps might be far more effective than simple resolutions, which are easily ignored or pushed aside. > As citizens, creators and consumers, each of us can also propose a more global list. Forgive me for saying so, but your response strikes me as a bit ironic -- losing sight of the larger theme by focusing on technically correct but less important details seems to be exactly the type of thing the author is hoping to discourage.
- joppy 8y ago
  Hilberts list of problems is way less clear-cut than you think. His first and second problems eventually ended up being “solved” only once people figured out what Kurt Gödel was going on about with his incompleteness theorems. But to many people at the time, this was not really a “solution”. There are other problems on the list like “formulate physics mathematically” and “further develop calculus”. So Hilbert’s list contains both specific and hopelessly vague problems.
Lerc 8y ago
The purely technical achievements I think have a much better chance than the ones that have a social component. Issues where you have a human adversary are much harder. Each advance may be met by the adversary advancing to maintain their advantage. Human Trafficking is an obvious example where there is an active adversary, but recent times have particularly shown the vulnerability of Democracy to malicious actors.
rs86 8y ago
Great idea for a post, but the list is awfully undecidable
- valar_m 8y ago
  It seems like that was indeed one of his points -- that perhaps the future now depends on solving problems that do not have objective measures of success: > Our next steps might be far more effective than simple resolutions, which are easily ignored or pushed aside.
  - foxes 8y ago
    That seems naive at best. How can you even judge what is effective with out some sort of metric? Seems like it would lead to alot of wasted effort. As an aside,usually the tools and techniques used to solve a well defined problem become pretty important. They lead to other well defined questions and then further objective progress. I also think the major problems we face are reasonably well defined, for example climate change and emission targets. Even then we struggle to actually solve some of them. Being nebulous will just make progress harder. Really is a bit rich to compare yourself in some way to Hilbert while being so hand wavy.
miguelrochefort 8y ago
> Beneficial man/machine interface (post Xerox Parc) Amen
- yuchi 8y ago
  That one hit for me too. We mostly stopped at 1995 with a small leap in 2007 (ZUIs coming from iPhone OS). Current experiments are more or less a remix of those two — interface less (assistants) are incredibly far away in the future to be able to replace current UIs completely.
  - donclark 8y ago
    I think that AR has a strong possibility of becoming more commonplace within 5 years. VRs future, Im not so sure of.
miguelrochefort 8y ago
I expected a better list from Seth. Seems poorly thought out and quickly put together.

68 points by slyall 8y ago

We need a microprocessor revolution of energy storage and dissipation (getting smaller but storing twice more every two years kind) to actually fulfill most of the other things in the list.

dmurray 8y ago

This is a shitty replacement for Hilbert's list. Hilbert had 25 problems in mathematics: when you solved them, you knew you had, or at worst you would wait for peer review to confirm you got it. No one will ever solve, to pick one, "Alternatives to paid labor for most humans". It's already happened for some people, will never happen for some people, and won't necessarily be a good thing if it happens for many people. The items on this list are overwhelmingly people and political problems and - even if they are laudable goals in general - don't belong in the same breath as Hilbert's.

dvt 8y ago
Let alone that some are just dubiously ambiguous. What does "transmutation of matter to different elements and structures" mean? We've already done this via hydrogen bombs and particle accelerators, it's just very (very) expensive or very (very) destructive. Or does the author mean something different -- maybe more like the alchemy of the Dark Ages? What does the author even mean by "structures"?
- Alex3917 8y ago
  I don't think he necessarily means elements in the chemistry sense of the word. By elements he probably just means new physical materials (e.g. graphene), and by structures he's probably talking about things like nanobots or 3D chips. (I could be completely wrong, but just a guess.)
valar_m 8y ago
I don't think his point is to replace Hilbert's list. I think his point is to think about specific problems that are worth the effort to solve. It seems like he made an effort to distinguish his list (and the exercise itself) from Hilbert's: > Technology doesn’t have to be high-tech. It can simply be the hard work of finding generous solutions to important problems, big or small. > Our next steps might be far more effective than simple resolutions, which are easily ignored or pushed aside. > As citizens, creators and consumers, each of us can also propose a more global list. Forgive me for saying so, but your response strikes me as a bit ironic -- losing sight of the larger theme by focusing on technically correct but less important details seems to be exactly the type of thing the author is hoping to discourage.
joppy 8y ago
Hilberts list of problems is way less clear-cut than you think. His first and second problems eventually ended up being “solved” only once people figured out what Kurt Gödel was going on about with his incompleteness theorems. But to many people at the time, this was not really a “solution”. There are other problems on the list like “formulate physics mathematically” and “further develop calculus”. So Hilbert’s list contains both specific and hopelessly vague problems.

Lerc 8y ago

The purely technical achievements I think have a much better chance than the ones that have a social component. Issues where you have a human adversary are much harder. Each advance may be met by the adversary advancing to maintain their advantage. Human Trafficking is an obvious example where there is an active adversary, but recent times have particularly shown the vulnerability of Democracy to malicious actors.

rs86 8y ago

Great idea for a post, but the list is awfully undecidable

valar_m 8y ago
It seems like that was indeed one of his points -- that perhaps the future now depends on solving problems that do not have objective measures of success: > Our next steps might be far more effective than simple resolutions, which are easily ignored or pushed aside.
- foxes 8y ago
  That seems naive at best. How can you even judge what is effective with out some sort of metric? Seems like it would lead to alot of wasted effort. As an aside,usually the tools and techniques used to solve a well defined problem become pretty important. They lead to other well defined questions and then further objective progress. I also think the major problems we face are reasonably well defined, for example climate change and emission targets. Even then we struggle to actually solve some of them. Being nebulous will just make progress harder. Really is a bit rich to compare yourself in some way to Hilbert while being so hand wavy.

miguelrochefort 8y ago

> Beneficial man/machine interface (post Xerox Parc) Amen

yuchi 8y ago
That one hit for me too. We mostly stopped at 1995 with a small leap in 2007 (ZUIs coming from iPhone OS). Current experiments are more or less a remix of those two — interface less (assistants) are incredibly far away in the future to be able to replace current UIs completely.
- donclark 8y ago
  I think that AR has a strong possibility of becoming more commonplace within 5 years. VRs future, Im not so sure of.

miguelrochefort 8y ago

I expected a better list from Seth. Seems poorly thought out and quickly put together.