Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 175 posts

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#131

Post by otikik »

patdennis wrote: post #26

>"Windows need be no more than an archaic touch, and even when present will be polarized to block out the harsh sunlight. The degree of opacity of the glass may even be made to alter automatically in accordance with the intensity of the light falling upon it." This actually makes me curious. Why don't we have photochromic windows? We use the technology in transition lenses.

A relatively cheap alternative is taking 2 polarized pieces of glass and making them rotate one on top of the other - that way the amount of light they let through is variable. The main drawback is that it requires circular windows with mechanical rotors.

There is also a patent that allegedly doesn't require rotation, but I have never seen it realized: http://www.google.com/patents/US6414790

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#132

Post by edem »

leeny wrote: post #16

I guess he never anticipated that "the best minds of [our] generation are thinking about how to make people click ads."[1] [1] http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/why-this-tech-...

Your post reminds me of this image:

http://joking.of-cour.se/files/2009/02/2393382.jpg

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#133

Post by mcv »

ygra wrote: post #113
k__ wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And experimental fusion-power plant or two will already > exist in 2014 They do.

Not exactly power plants if they only exist to test certain approaches instead of actually generating power.

They're experimental. They're used for experimentation, not production.

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#134

Post by VLM »

dalek_cannes wrote: post #68
zanny wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On some of the missing ones: 1. We have at least one fusion plant I know of, the UK Joint Torus, which I know have been operating for decades. It just consumes more power than it generates. But Asimov suggests one or two, which is strikingly accurate. 2. We could probably make radio-decay batteries (maybe not AA size, but car batteries running on Thorium or some such, albeit an extremely expensive containment for som…

> We produce vastly more, but work as much as ever. Back in the 60s the sentiment was that 21st century Americans might have 10 hour work weeks. Isn't that because we now have a very large semi-parasitical managerial class that we need to support? It's almost a retreat into feudalism. Doubt anybody saw that coming.

One interesting interpretation is the ratio of people with desk jobs consisting of 50% (or higher) fooling around vs sweaty manual labor jobs has led to the average American perhaps only working 20 hours a week right now.

Think of pointless meetings, smoke breaks, soda breaks, talking about sports, life, hobbies, debating/complaining, talking politics, talking about TV shows, online shopping, keeping up with twitter/FB/Linkedin, Hacker News, the average cubie dweller probably only puts in 10-20 hours a week of actual work right now.

"Everyone knows" the guy who's forced to put in 60 hours at the office who spends 50 of those hours on FB / Reddit / talking about football, etc.

There's a Russian proverb about we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.

If you define work as "hours spend on premises" then no one has worked as many hours as Americans do today since the early 1900s. If you define work as actually doing something productive, well, thats a whole nother ball game.

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#135

Post by seanmcdirmid »

zanny wrote: post #31
ricardobeat wrote: post #29

Round-up: ✗ EL panels (not yet) ✗ Smart glass (unless you own a ferrari) ✓ Frozen meals + programmable microwave ✓ Lame robots ✓ 3D movies ✗ Fusion power plants ✗ Radioactive batteries ✓ Solar power ✓ Self-driving cars (in progress) ✗ Moving sidewalks (do airport conveyors count?) ✓ Video calls ✓ Mobile data, sharing, e-books ✓ Global mobile phone network ✗ Moon colonies (double fail since he just takes them for gran…

On some of the missing ones: 1. We have at least one fusion plant I know of, the UK Joint Torus, which I know have been operating for decades. It just consumes more power than it generates. But Asimov suggests one or two, which is strikingly accurate. 2. We could probably make radio-decay batteries (maybe not AA size, but car batteries running on Thorium or some such, albeit an extremely expensive containment for som…

Wouldn't the Hong Kong escalators count as moving side walks?

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#136

Post by VLM »

dredmorbius wrote: post #109

Let's judge... The piece is less optimistic and cornucopian than I'd expected. The first part is pretty light, but it turns a shade dark, especially for. The prediction record includes a few failures but surprisingly more hits than I expected. men will continue to withdraw from nature Yes and no. Our environments are more artificial, but we're not living in hermetically sealed enclosures. Electroluminescent panels ..…

"Processed yeast and algae Vegemite and nori flakes aside, not so much. And I really don't see the cultured burger going very far."

Soy is a cheaper raw material. Not his fault. Given that, he turned out 100% correct.

"Undoubtedly, the world of A.D. 2014 will have agreed on the [lowering the birth rate]. Sadly, not."

images.google.com world birth rate graph, when he wrote this the world's total fertility rate is the average woman squirted out a hair under five kids, and its been a smooth line decline since then to a hair over two and a half kids now.

When you add some permanent long term economic decline to the mix, you could see total fertility rate dropping below the 2.1 or whatever it takes to maintain population in a stable culture. The current 2.5 might not be enough to maintain population in an unstable culture. Already numerous individual 1st world countries are below a 2 TFR aka their population is in permanent long term decline if not for 3rd world immigrants. Economists like to bake a population growth based increase in their estimates, makes them look better, so they hate that. Everyone else thinks its probably a good idea.

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#137

Post by seanmcdirmid »

mirkules wrote: post #94
beambot wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart glass exists (Transitions lenses), as do radioactive batteries (using beta-decay by a company called BetaBatt, and RTGs used by NASA). The former is a commercial success; I've owned and loved the lenses for years. I don't know if the latter is used outside certain sensing, defense, and aerospace applications.

It should be noted, however, that he correctly predicts that batteries should be disposed of only by authorized centers undoubtedly due to their hypothetical radioactive nature -- which is clearly wrong -- but I think we can give a quarter of a point there for even thinking about the ramifications of disposable batteries.

Disposal isn't much of a concern in deep space or on mars (yet).

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#138

Post by anigbrowl »

area51org wrote: post #10
anigbrowl wrote: post #3

Robots will neither be common nor very good in 2014, but they will be in existence. They're good but not common.

There are uncommon sort-of-good ones (by Asimov standards), but the semi-common ones are abysmal. Ever own a Roomba? I never will again.

I was thinking of semi-humanoid industrial robots, like this (prototype) model from ABB: http://www.abb.com/cawp/abbzh254/fcfbdad9a72cfe08c1257862006...

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#139

Post by lambda »

dredmorbius wrote: post #109

Let's judge... The piece is less optimistic and cornucopian than I'd expected. The first part is pretty light, but it turns a shade dark, especially for. The prediction record includes a few failures but surprisingly more hits than I expected. men will continue to withdraw from nature Yes and no. Our environments are more artificial, but we're not living in hermetically sealed enclosures. Electroluminescent panels ..…

> Robots They're rather less common or good than Asimov supposed. As with cooking gadgets, it turns out that it's difficult to design something that can navigate a home (including stairs and uneven surfaces), perform tasks, usefully, and not cost a bundle. Especially when competing with low-cost maid services.

He did say they'd be uncommon and not very good. What he didn't forsee is that they would not be humanoid robots.

Roombas are available, and can help clean your house. They aren't all that common, and aren't all that "good" by his metric of what a robot should be able to do, but they do exist, and people really do use them.

Furthermore, UAVs are increasingly common in the military. While some of them, like Predator drones, are remote controlled, some of them can operate fully autonomously for the vast majority of their flight.

And of course, industrial robots are so ubiquitous that they've faded into the background long ago.

So I would say that "uncommon and not very good" (according to his vision of humanoid robots that can replace most manual human tasks) is a fair assessment. He just figured that they would be clumsy humanoid robots, as opposed to more specialized robots that were fairly good at an individual task but can't do anything else.

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#140

Post by RyanMcGreal »

gosub wrote: post #103
dalek_cannes wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We produce vastly more, but work as much as ever. Back in the 60s the sentiment was that 21st century Americans might have 10 hour work weeks. Isn't that because we now have a very large semi-parasitical managerial class that we need to support? It's almost a retreat into feudalism. Doubt anybody saw that coming.

No, it's because if a worker works 8h/day, and produces X, given a new technology that double his productivity, he is now expected to still work 8h/day, and produce 2X.

But his pay remains X, while the CEO, VP team and shareholders keep 100% of the extra value.
Post reply on HN