4 ms·

From the article: "3D printing is really a subset of autonomous technology and robotics." Interesting to pick up on how she maps investments across "innovation

From the article: "3D printing is really a subset of autonomous technology and robotics." Interesting to pick up on how she maps investments across "innovation themes" like robotics, AI, etc admittedly without deep domain knowledge herself, depending on the input of analysts.

smoldesu 5y ago
By that logic, all cars are really just a subset of human-operable motorized transport devices. It's much less impressive if you look at it that way, right?
- wearywanderer 5y ago
  > human-operable motorized transport devices Also known as 'automobile' or 'motor vehicle.' Cars are really just a subset of automobiles. It's less weird when you phrase it like that, using established terminology, right?
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    And now we've come full circle. That was my original point: we can abstract technologies like this into their original components, but it doesn't do any good to do so.
    - wearywanderer 5y ago
      What you call "abstract technology to their original components", I call understanding the historic context of technology. I think there is a lot of value in understanding that context. Without looking at that historic context, people are more likely to let their imaginations run wild and inadvertently come to believe things that aren't true (a significant portion of the general public believe Henry Ford invented cars...) or come to view technologies with an unwarranted level of awe and tunnel vision (the way 3d printing seems to be viewed by some, as mystical Star Trek replicator technology that came out of nowhere.) More generally, if people don't understand the true historic context of technology they become more likely to believe things that aren't true about technology. There is inherent value in dispelling myths and providing historic context for technology does exactly that. And why is it important to break a technology down into it's constituent fundamental traits or properties? Because almost always the historical context of a technology includes technologies that did not share the same name. If you're talking about the history of cars but limit the scope of your consideration to things called cars, you won't get back much further than the 1890s. But if you break the concept of a car down, it becomes clear that you need to consider the history of wheeled vehicles and the history of motorized vehicles. Self-propelled traction engine are one of the conceptual predecessors to the machines we now call cars. They share 'abstract concepts' with cars (a wheeled vehicle, not on rails, which can move around under its own power), but not a name. Traction engines aren't cars, but are important historic context for cars. If you aren't willing to consider the abstract attributes that constitute a car, you cannot consider the true historic context of cars.
wearywanderer 5y ago
> "3D printing is really a subset of autonomous technology and robotics." I'm confused, is this an objectionable statement? A lot of people seem to treat 3d printing as something truly special and unique, but actually 3d printing is a form of CNC; additive rather than subtractive like a CNC mill, but a form of CNC nonetheless. It's a technology firmly rooted in a broader tree of established technologies. I guess some people think of these machines as printers foremost, and thus perceive a huge conceptual jump or paradigm shift from 2d desktop inkjets to 3d printers. If somebody comes from a computer background rather than a manufacturing background, it's easy to see why this framing might be chosen. But I don't think that's the right way to look at 3d printers. Rather, 3d printers are the synthesis of two already well established concepts in manufacturing: making things by adding material, and controlling machines using computers. Edit: > Wouldn't 2D printers then also be a subset of autonomous technology and robotics? The modern familiar forms of 2d printers are such a subset, yes (and I never implied otherwise.) These machines were preceded by other forms of 2d printing which are not autonomous but were nonetheless mechanical. They were also preceded by autonomous forms of 2d printing that didn't fit inside your living room, but were nonetheless familiar technology to the general public (because everybody knows books exist.) I believe this is the reason 2d printing is generally considered more mundane than 3d printing, which is treated like sci-fi technology that came out of left field. Again, understanding the historic context of these machines gives us insight into the reasons they are perceived the way they are.
- rriepe 5y ago
  Wouldn't 2D printers then also be a subset of autonomous technology and robotics?
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    From one angle, by looking at the bill of materials comparing a inkjet and makerbot, they both look like robots But from another angle, printing and publishing paper is a different industry than manufacturing objects, so the distinction is in their context
- alfl 5y ago

smoldesu 5y ago

By that logic, all cars are really just a subset of human-operable motorized transport devices. It's much less impressive if you look at it that way, right?

wearywanderer 5y ago
> human-operable motorized transport devices Also known as 'automobile' or 'motor vehicle.' Cars are really just a subset of automobiles. It's less weird when you phrase it like that, using established terminology, right?
- smoldesu 5y ago
  And now we've come full circle. That was my original point: we can abstract technologies like this into their original components, but it doesn't do any good to do so.
  - wearywanderer 5y ago
    What you call "abstract technology to their original components", I call understanding the historic context of technology. I think there is a lot of value in understanding that context. Without looking at that historic context, people are more likely to let their imaginations run wild and inadvertently come to believe things that aren't true (a significant portion of the general public believe Henry Ford invented cars...) or come to view technologies with an unwarranted level of awe and tunnel vision (the way 3d printing seems to be viewed by some, as mystical Star Trek replicator technology that came out of nowhere.) More generally, if people don't understand the true historic context of technology they become more likely to believe things that aren't true about technology. There is inherent value in dispelling myths and providing historic context for technology does exactly that. And why is it important to break a technology down into it's constituent fundamental traits or properties? Because almost always the historical context of a technology includes technologies that did not share the same name. If you're talking about the history of cars but limit the scope of your consideration to things called cars, you won't get back much further than the 1890s. But if you break the concept of a car down, it becomes clear that you need to consider the history of wheeled vehicles and the history of motorized vehicles. Self-propelled traction engine are one of the conceptual predecessors to the machines we now call cars. They share 'abstract concepts' with cars (a wheeled vehicle, not on rails, which can move around under its own power), but not a name. Traction engines aren't cars, but are important historic context for cars. If you aren't willing to consider the abstract attributes that constitute a car, you cannot consider the true historic context of cars.

wearywanderer 5y ago

> "3D printing is really a subset of autonomous technology and robotics." I'm confused, is this an objectionable statement? A lot of people seem to treat 3d printing as something truly special and unique, but actually 3d printing is a form of CNC; additive rather than subtractive like a CNC mill, but a form of CNC nonetheless. It's a technology firmly rooted in a broader tree of established technologies. I guess some people think of these machines as printers foremost, and thus perceive a huge conceptual jump or paradigm shift from 2d desktop inkjets to 3d printers. If somebody comes from a computer background rather than a manufacturing background, it's easy to see why this framing might be chosen. But I don't think that's the right way to look at 3d printers. Rather, 3d printers are the synthesis of two already well established concepts in manufacturing: making things by adding material, and controlling machines using computers. Edit: > Wouldn't 2D printers then also be a subset of autonomous technology and robotics? The modern familiar forms of 2d printers are such a subset, yes (and I never implied otherwise.) These machines were preceded by other forms of 2d printing which are not autonomous but were nonetheless mechanical. They were also preceded by autonomous forms of 2d printing that didn't fit inside your living room, but were nonetheless familiar technology to the general public (because everybody knows books exist.) I believe this is the reason 2d printing is generally considered more mundane than 3d printing, which is treated like sci-fi technology that came out of left field. Again, understanding the historic context of these machines gives us insight into the reasons they are perceived the way they are.

rriepe 5y ago
Wouldn't 2D printers then also be a subset of autonomous technology and robotics?
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  From one angle, by looking at the bill of materials comparing a inkjet and makerbot, they both look like robots But from another angle, printing and publishing paper is a different industry than manufacturing objects, so the distinction is in their context
alfl 5y ago