3 ms·

The quote however shows that sometimes it takes an invention, or an inventor, to jump from an old context to a newer one without the market asking for it. A sim

The quote however shows that sometimes it takes an invention, or an inventor, to jump from an old context to a newer one without the market asking for it. A similar one regarding computers could have been like "Had I asked people what they wanted, they would have replied bigger abacuses", that is, it requires some genius (besides courage and deep pockets) to realize when it's time to rethink about the problem and jump to a better solution that is a lot more than the previous one on steroids.

eru 4y ago
Not sure. There was a pretty incremental path from earlier mechanical computing devices, like Pascal's Pascaline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_calculator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_calculator towards more and more sophistication. Then you have electromechanic devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_computer#Electro-mechanical_computers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_computer#Electro-me... then the first fully electronic devices, etc. There were some groundbreaking innovations happening in reality, but merely sped up the process; without them incremental progress would have eventually gotten us there, too. In general, in a high dimensional space incremental progress is incredibly powerful. That's how we train neural networks, and that's how evolution works. Courage and genius still help speed things up, when you can get them. But they are seldom absolutely necessary. Slightly related: https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2016/Boudreauxprosperitypool.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2016/Boudreauxprosp... has a good point about pool noodles. Pool noodles were a minor invention at some point. Nobody really needs pool noodles to get through the day, but they do provide a bit of utility (otherwise people wouldn't buy them). Lots of small and incremental improvements in the economy look like pool noodles. But taken together they really add up.

eru 4y ago

Not sure. There was a pretty incremental path from earlier mechanical computing devices, like Pascal's Pascaline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_calculator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_calculator towards more and more sophistication. Then you have electromechanic devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_computer#Electro-mechanical_computers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_computer#Electro-me... then the first fully electronic devices, etc. There were some groundbreaking innovations happening in reality, but merely sped up the process; without them incremental progress would have eventually gotten us there, too. In general, in a high dimensional space incremental progress is incredibly powerful. That's how we train neural networks, and that's how evolution works. Courage and genius still help speed things up, when you can get them. But they are seldom absolutely necessary. Slightly related: https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2016/Boudreauxprosperitypool.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2016/Boudreauxprosp... has a good point about pool noodles. Pool noodles were a minor invention at some point. Nobody really needs pool noodles to get through the day, but they do provide a bit of utility (otherwise people wouldn't buy them). Lots of small and incremental improvements in the economy look like pool noodles. But taken together they really add up.