4 ms·

Fusion by 1990 with a bit of extra investment promised in 1972 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.175.4027.1194.b https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s

Fusion by 1990 with a bit of extra investment promised in 1972 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.175.4027.1194.b https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.175.4027.1194.b I remember tons of articles from that time arguing the same. Then the attention shifted to "fifth-generation computers".

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gwoolhurme 3y ago
That is actually a really interesting find. Some of the verbiage is parallel to the hype we have around AGI right now too "fusion by 1990 instead of 2000..." does that not sound exactly like AGI in X year up from Y year that we read now?
- patrickas 3y ago
  Please see my reply to parent. > "fusion by 1990 instead of 2000..." Those three dots are omitting the most important part of the issue if we spend that much extra money on R&D In the fusion case no one was willing to spend the money, in AGI's case it looks like everyone seems to be willing to spend the money. I personally hope they won't, but that is a crutial point not to be overlooked.
  - gwoolhurme 3y ago
    That wasn’t the case at all for fusion. It is that to be viable different scientific breakthroughs in particle physics, and lasers. Especially to the point where the demo recently showed the viability of it. If you read up on it you’ll see that there was a lot of important steps that lead up to the short demo that was achieved. That is my point though, if you read the article even after the ellipses it wasn’t a monetary issue.
patrickas 3y ago
I don't think this contradicts the AGI prediction though (nor the "Fusion by 1990 with a bit of extra investment" prediction for that matters) https://external-preview.redd.it/LkKBNe1NW51Wh-8nLSTRdQtTha2sV1yY46vhUWcu_6g.png?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=15d1e920ad6cc4047b5edd70be1ef51de01bbec0 https://external-preview.redd.it/LkKBNe1NW51Wh-8nLSTRdQtTha2... This chart shows how much people in the 1970s estimated should be invested to have fusion by 1990, to have it by 2000s and to "never" have it. We ended up spending below the "never" amount for research over four decades so of course fusion never happened exactly as predicted. I think the main difference is that no one was interested in investing in fusion back then, while everyone is interested in investing in AGI now.
- TheDudeMan 3y ago
  In addition to the funding aspect, I think it could be argued that a fusion reactor is actually much harder than people thought it was in 1970.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gwoolhurme 3y ago

That is actually a really interesting find. Some of the verbiage is parallel to the hype we have around AGI right now too "fusion by 1990 instead of 2000..." does that not sound exactly like AGI in X year up from Y year that we read now?

patrickas 3y ago
Please see my reply to parent. > "fusion by 1990 instead of 2000..." Those three dots are omitting the most important part of the issue if we spend that much extra money on R&D In the fusion case no one was willing to spend the money, in AGI's case it looks like everyone seems to be willing to spend the money. I personally hope they won't, but that is a crutial point not to be overlooked.
- gwoolhurme 3y ago
  That wasn’t the case at all for fusion. It is that to be viable different scientific breakthroughs in particle physics, and lasers. Especially to the point where the demo recently showed the viability of it. If you read up on it you’ll see that there was a lot of important steps that lead up to the short demo that was achieved. That is my point though, if you read the article even after the ellipses it wasn’t a monetary issue.

patrickas 3y ago

I don't think this contradicts the AGI prediction though (nor the "Fusion by 1990 with a bit of extra investment" prediction for that matters) https://external-preview.redd.it/LkKBNe1NW51Wh-8nLSTRdQtTha2sV1yY46vhUWcu_6g.png?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=15d1e920ad6cc4047b5edd70be1ef51de01bbec0 https://external-preview.redd.it/LkKBNe1NW51Wh-8nLSTRdQtTha2... This chart shows how much people in the 1970s estimated should be invested to have fusion by 1990, to have it by 2000s and to "never" have it. We ended up spending below the "never" amount for research over four decades so of course fusion never happened exactly as predicted. I think the main difference is that no one was interested in investing in fusion back then, while everyone is interested in investing in AGI now.

TheDudeMan 3y ago
In addition to the funding aspect, I think it could be argued that a fusion reactor is actually much harder than people thought it was in 1970.