4 ms·

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" wh

by 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.
- jonny_eh 8y ago
  I've read two of his books. He's an amazing historian and writer, but I'm not a fan of his futurology. Studying history is important but it certainly doesn't predict the future.
x3tm 8y ago
A key point of that piece in the Atlantic, if I remember correctly, was that there are no breakthroughs now because we already know, for the most part, what is there to be known. We know the most important ideas/theories about the world we live in (evolution, the standard model, general relativity, etc.) and so the 'rest is detail' now. I've reached a similar conclusion about fundamental physics. At the very least we are stuck with what we have for a very long time. This may seem to be anti-scientific or anti-progress but who proved that scientific progress is unbounded?
- hoaw 8y ago
  Yes, that is essentially the main point. I am just not sure it is that relevant. Even if science is getting harder, so is the utility by itself. Transportation is very useful everyday, going to the moon is (while impressive and inspiring) useful mostly once. On the other hand I am not sure it has become harder to make science useful as such. Every incremental step in e.g. transportation can potentially matter a lot. So I have a bit of a hard time connecting that science would be harder and that it doesn't serve us. I am sort of left wondering what the agenda would be.
- sampo 8y ago
  > we already know, for the most part, what is there to be known This is also what what generally believed about physics in the 1890s, right before everything exploded with Relativity and Quantum Physics. "it was generally accepted that all the important laws of physics had been discovered and that, henceforth, research would be concerned with clearing up minor problems and particularly with improvements of method and measurement" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics#20th_century:_birth_of_modern_physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics#20th_centur...

by hoaw 8y ago

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.
jonny_eh 8y ago
I've read two of his books. He's an amazing historian and writer, but I'm not a fan of his futurology. Studying history is important but it certainly doesn't predict the future.

x3tm 8y ago

A key point of that piece in the Atlantic, if I remember correctly, was that there are no breakthroughs now because we already know, for the most part, what is there to be known. We know the most important ideas/theories about the world we live in (evolution, the standard model, general relativity, etc.) and so the 'rest is detail' now. I've reached a similar conclusion about fundamental physics. At the very least we are stuck with what we have for a very long time. This may seem to be anti-scientific or anti-progress but who proved that scientific progress is unbounded?

hoaw 8y ago
Yes, that is essentially the main point. I am just not sure it is that relevant. Even if science is getting harder, so is the utility by itself. Transportation is very useful everyday, going to the moon is (while impressive and inspiring) useful mostly once. On the other hand I am not sure it has become harder to make science useful as such. Every incremental step in e.g. transportation can potentially matter a lot. So I have a bit of a hard time connecting that science would be harder and that it doesn't serve us. I am sort of left wondering what the agenda would be.
sampo 8y ago
> we already know, for the most part, what is there to be known This is also what what generally believed about physics in the 1890s, right before everything exploded with Relativity and Quantum Physics. "it was generally accepted that all the important laws of physics had been discovered and that, henceforth, research would be concerned with clearing up minor problems and particularly with improvements of method and measurement" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics#20th_century:_birth_of_modern_physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics#20th_centur...