7 ms·

I am trying to read transcript, but I can't really make sense of it. It seems all over the place. I mean, what is even the argument that society, or growth, is

by hoaw 8y ago

I am trying to read transcript, but I can't really make sense of it. It seems all over the place. I mean, what is even the argument that society, or growth, is hard science bound? Maybe that isn't the point. Some things that define society, or at least peoples views, have also just been getting harder. You can't really do something as obviously meaningful in space as the moon landing. You can do many other things if you change your frame of reference, but we are not going interstellar anytime soon. If there is any observation I would make it is that the way innovation is made seems to have changed. It used to be you had some sort of goal and then tried to get the best technology to do that. Today, it seems like companies, and societies, are sitting around waiting for technologies to exploit. One day self-driving cars, 3d printed houses and AI enabled health scanners are going to save us all. We aren't really sure how, why or if there is even much worth saving at that point, but it will surely happen?

throwaway_u328s 8y ago
(Throwaway since I know a lot of the Stripe folks.) Agreed -- I'm disappointed to see this from pc. This piece reeks of the "Andy Grove Fallacy", as described by to Derek Lowe ([1] and [2]). It's one thing to be a mastercard middleman -- it's completely different to create new fundamental knowledge about the world. [1] "Andy Grove: Rich, Famous, Smart and Wrong" http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2007/11/06/andy_grove_rich_famous_smart_and_wrong http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2007/11/06/and... [2] "Silicon Valley Sunglasses" http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/04/02/silicon_valley_sunglasses http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/04/02/sil...
- hoaw 8y ago
  I read the article from The Atlantic instead. While I disagree with their analysis, where I can't help thinking that they are just measuring the "wow-factor" which would diminish as more people are working on something in a more iterative fashion, the middle part of the article is quite interesting. I also appreciate that they left it rather open ended especially since I assume we wouldn't come to the same conclusion. One thing they are at least implying, but I think they could have explored more is implementations. While you can argue whether there are less scientific breakthroughs or not, we certainly have less implementations. Were I assume I differ from their view is that I think this have to do with diminish returns for the implementations themselves. To some extent it becomes meaningless to "cure cancer" when we have preventable diseases and situations killing people every day. So there can't realistically be a goal to do it. (Which isn't intended as an argument about the value of each). As I insinuated earlier I think a breakthrough is really in the eye of the beholder. Society these days doesn't really provide a platform for creating and implementing breakthroughs. The ambition get lost in the noise. I think people assume when watching utopian science fiction that science resulted in society. Maybe in reality it is the other way around. Once you decide that everyone deserves e.g. housing the result becomes worth it and the science follows. That is certainly what happened in the ~60s in many parts of the world. If no one thinks that this is a worthy breakthrough why would anything happen in the first place today? [What I really wanted to say was that I found the middle part of article surprisingly interesting].
  - petra 8y ago
    >> I think a breakthrough is really in the eye of the beholder . Society these days doesn't really provide a platform for creating and implementing breakthroughs. If you'd ask yuval-noah harari, an historian, he'll say that with today's and tomorrow's innovation in AI and robotics , we're at unprecedented era in history.
    - hoaw 8y ago
      I don't know much about him, more than what I could find on Wikipedia. I just don't think most of these people have a significant enough hypothesis to warrant the expectation of breakthrough. If someone can propose the specific way AI will change e.g. medicine once it reaches a certain level, that might be something. At least if the difference is great enough. "It will change society", doesn't have so much standing in my opinion. I guess if you are a historian it probably does. Until someone start spending money for something specific (which might already be happening) I wouldn’t expect a breakthrough, because it doesn’t really matter.
    - x3tm 8y ago
      Impact on society doesn't mean impact on science. What scientific breakthroughs were due to the internet? Yet, the internet had/has an unprecedented impact on history. On the other hand, when someone starts having public opinions on pretty much anything (from buddhism to AI), I tend to be very suspicious about their expertise.
      - jacobolus 8y ago
        > What scientific breakthroughs were due to the internet? Many, many, many. But it’s hard to pinpoint them. Lower-friction communication between researchers and better access to published science is an incredible catalyst for every kind of advance (from trivial incremental improvements through to new paradigms) in every field.
        x3tm 8y ago
        Better/faster communication can facilitate work, but it's not the same as causing a breakthrough like say new data/theory. In that regard, English as a unified scientific language has probably a bigger impact than the internet.
- coffeemug 8y ago
  I worked with pc a little (and observed him make lots of decisions). His biggest strength IMO is entering a domain where he has no experience whatsoever, and very rapidly building up correct intuition on how to operate in that domain. There are very, very few people who can do it as well as he can. I think being "mastercard middleman" is disingenuous. Firstly, because doing that well breaks down into getting good at many domains (software, finance, management, regulatory, sales, recruiting, fundraising, etc. etc. etc.), and secondly because Stripe is far more than that. At the very least, his intuition on these issues is very likely to be much, much better than random chance.
  - hyperpallium 8y ago
    We should listen to him not as a Stripe founder, but as a smart guy. But he's being interviewed because he's a Stripe founder.
michael_nielsen 8y ago
The transcript appears to be "highlights" (i.e., excerpts with gaps between), and so it wouldn't be surprising if it jumps around.
- x3tm 8y ago
  I am studying your book on DL right now. I came here to have a short break ... and there you are :-) Thanks for the book. It's great!
Lordarminius 8y ago
The transcript is a poorly done summary.
hyperpallium 8y ago
Today's milieu is exploiting existing technology, which has raced ahead, affecting our perception of technology in general. A deeper cause is mathematics taught as a trade to technicians, when Euclid and geometry stopped being central. Instead of a way to think, to prove, to investigate, we have tools for jobs.

by hoaw 8y ago

throwaway_u328s 8y ago

(Throwaway since I know a lot of the Stripe folks.) Agreed -- I'm disappointed to see this from pc. This piece reeks of the "Andy Grove Fallacy", as described by to Derek Lowe ([1] and [2]). It's one thing to be a mastercard middleman -- it's completely different to create new fundamental knowledge about the world. [1] "Andy Grove: Rich, Famous, Smart and Wrong" http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2007/11/06/andy_grove_rich_famous_smart_and_wrong http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2007/11/06/and... [2] "Silicon Valley Sunglasses" http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/04/02/silicon_valley_sunglasses http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/04/02/sil...

hoaw 8y ago
I read the article from The Atlantic instead. While I disagree with their analysis, where I can't help thinking that they are just measuring the "wow-factor" which would diminish as more people are working on something in a more iterative fashion, the middle part of the article is quite interesting. I also appreciate that they left it rather open ended especially since I assume we wouldn't come to the same conclusion. One thing they are at least implying, but I think they could have explored more is implementations. While you can argue whether there are less scientific breakthroughs or not, we certainly have less implementations. Were I assume I differ from their view is that I think this have to do with diminish returns for the implementations themselves. To some extent it becomes meaningless to "cure cancer" when we have preventable diseases and situations killing people every day. So there can't realistically be a goal to do it. (Which isn't intended as an argument about the value of each). As I insinuated earlier I think a breakthrough is really in the eye of the beholder. Society these days doesn't really provide a platform for creating and implementing breakthroughs. The ambition get lost in the noise. I think people assume when watching utopian science fiction that science resulted in society. Maybe in reality it is the other way around. Once you decide that everyone deserves e.g. housing the result becomes worth it and the science follows. That is certainly what happened in the ~60s in many parts of the world. If no one thinks that this is a worthy breakthrough why would anything happen in the first place today? [What I really wanted to say was that I found the middle part of article surprisingly interesting].
- petra 8y ago
  >> I think a breakthrough is really in the eye of the beholder . Society these days doesn't really provide a platform for creating and implementing breakthroughs. If you'd ask yuval-noah harari, an historian, he'll say that with today's and tomorrow's innovation in AI and robotics , we're at unprecedented era in history.
  - hoaw 8y ago
    I don't know much about him, more than what I could find on Wikipedia. I just don't think most of these people have a significant enough hypothesis to warrant the expectation of breakthrough. If someone can propose the specific way AI will change e.g. medicine once it reaches a certain level, that might be something. At least if the difference is great enough. "It will change society", doesn't have so much standing in my opinion. I guess if you are a historian it probably does. Until someone start spending money for something specific (which might already be happening) I wouldn’t expect a breakthrough, because it doesn’t really matter.
  - x3tm 8y ago
    Impact on society doesn't mean impact on science. What scientific breakthroughs were due to the internet? Yet, the internet had/has an unprecedented impact on history. On the other hand, when someone starts having public opinions on pretty much anything (from buddhism to AI), I tend to be very suspicious about their expertise.
    - jacobolus 8y ago
      > What scientific breakthroughs were due to the internet? Many, many, many. But it’s hard to pinpoint them. Lower-friction communication between researchers and better access to published science is an incredible catalyst for every kind of advance (from trivial incremental improvements through to new paradigms) in every field.
      - x3tm 8y ago
        Better/faster communication can facilitate work, but it's not the same as causing a breakthrough like say new data/theory. In that regard, English as a unified scientific language has probably a bigger impact than the internet.
coffeemug 8y ago
I worked with pc a little (and observed him make lots of decisions). His biggest strength IMO is entering a domain where he has no experience whatsoever, and very rapidly building up correct intuition on how to operate in that domain. There are very, very few people who can do it as well as he can. I think being "mastercard middleman" is disingenuous. Firstly, because doing that well breaks down into getting good at many domains (software, finance, management, regulatory, sales, recruiting, fundraising, etc. etc. etc.), and secondly because Stripe is far more than that. At the very least, his intuition on these issues is very likely to be much, much better than random chance.
- hyperpallium 8y ago
  We should listen to him not as a Stripe founder, but as a smart guy. But he's being interviewed because he's a Stripe founder.

michael_nielsen 8y ago

The transcript appears to be "highlights" (i.e., excerpts with gaps between), and so it wouldn't be surprising if it jumps around.

x3tm 8y ago
I am studying your book on DL right now. I came here to have a short break ... and there you are :-) Thanks for the book. It's great!

Lordarminius 8y ago

The transcript is a poorly done summary.

hyperpallium 8y ago

Today's milieu is exploiting existing technology, which has raced ahead, affecting our perception of technology in general. A deeper cause is mathematics taught as a trade to technicians, when Euclid and geometry stopped being central. Instead of a way to think, to prove, to investigate, we have tools for jobs.