Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#11

Post by kjjw » Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 9:14 PM UTC

api wrote: post #3

"I sort-of date the end of rapid technological progress to the late-60s or early-70s. At that point something more or less broke in this country and in the western world more generally which has put us into a zone where there’s much slower technological progress." I've believed for years that we entered something like a minor dark age (dim age?) on or about 1970, and that computers have become synonymous with "techno…

1970 is about the end of the Apollo programme, and I presume the end of the massive government spending on science and engineering that went with it.

You're right, a libertarian view of this is way off the mark.

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#12

Post by rpedela » Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 9:16 PM UTC

api wrote: post #4

dicroce wrote: post #2

Wow, that article is a total bummer. But it seems to me he's cherry picking all of the things that haven't worked out so well, or progressed as fast as we'd like and pronouncing us a failure.... What about all the things that we didn't predict, that we DO have? We are remarkably close to self driving cars... that is awesome... Some recent breakthroughs in AI I suspect will be rippling through our civilization for qui…

Everything you cite is in or closely related to the IT sector, which is the exception. Every other sector has gone cold or even backwards since ~1970.

There has been plenty of innovation.

When mature, electric vehicles mean the cost of fuel is essentially zero. Whenever there has a been a massive drop in energy costs, there has also been an economic boom. Electric vehicles also mean no more air pollution from vehicles which means a healthier population and fewer medical bills. Then you have the whole AI thing which promises to drastically reduce, if not eliminate, accidents as well as reduce traffic congestion.

SpaceX is getting pretty damn close to a reusable rocket which will drastically reduce the cost of entering orbit. If that happens, then it is likely that space will become a viable market for private enterprise: tourism, mining, etc.

There is a lot of work going on in energy including some designs for fusion that should be commercially viable. I don't know what is going to happen with energy, but there are way too many people working on it for nothing significant to happen in the near future.

In healthcare, it seems like every few days I am reading about a person being cured of blindness with stem cells, growing or 3D printing an organ in a lab, or some new insight into how the body ages.

I could keep going, but I am tired of typing letters. The point is that "Every other sector has gone cold or even backwards since ~1970" is a false statement.

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#13

Post by api » Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 9:20 PM UTC

fidotron wrote: post #10

api wrote: post #3

"I sort-of date the end of rapid technological progress to the late-60s or early-70s. At that point something more or less broke in this country and in the western world more generally which has put us into a zone where there’s much slower technological progress." I've believed for years that we entered something like a minor dark age (dim age?) on or about 1970, and that computers have become synonymous with "techno…

The cold war having gone by the tipping point was also a very large factor. This tied into the moonrace, and the spin off innovations from that. As a side note, It has always annoyed me that there's a loud contingent of people that object to human space travel on the basis it's not the most efficient way to conduct science, because that is not the point of it. It is a signal of intent, throwing the baton far into the…

> It has always annoyed me that there's a loud contingent of people that object to human space travel on the basis it's not the most efficient way to conduct science...

Sometimes I actually blame Skepticism.

I'm not talking about skepticism mind you, but Skepticism-- the capital-S variety that became so popular in science starting in the 1970s as a reaction against things like the new age and the resurgence of religious fundamentalism. Rather than an attempt to keep the candle of science burning, I've started seeing Skeptics as another manifestation of the general turn toward superstition that occurred on or around this time. Theirs is the superstition of the known-- the belief that that which is not presently understood cannot possibly exist. Skepticism also usually fellow-travels with the kind of deep conservatism you're talking about. Head over to Skeptic boards and you'll see that the general opinion is anti-manned-space-flight for exactly the reasons you state-- it's not the most science for the buck, etc. It also usually fellow-travels with eco-doomerism for the simple reason that no comprehensive solutions to our current energy problems are known therefore they cannot possibly exist. (That which is not known can't possibly exist, remember?) Skepticism raised a generation of scientists whose first instinct is to tear things down and narrow the range of possibility.

My personal big overarching theory on the dark age of the 70s is that there was a broad shift toward conservatism and fundamentalism across the entire spectrum of human thought: right and left, scientific and mystical, etc. As for why I'm not sure, but I suspect that fear was a big part of it. Lovecraft said it best:

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." - H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

That's exactly what I think happened: we fled from the deadly light into a whole grab bag of comforting, pessimistic, conservative absolutisms. Apocalyptic fiction is so popular for the same reason-- people find it comforting in a weird way. If we're all doomed then at least we know what the outcome will be... unlike more optimistic visions of the future that end with black voids like "the singularity," human genetic metamorphosis, alien contact, the birth of AI or other post-human intelligence, etc. I think there's a part of us that finds the unknown more terrifying than death and that secretly hopes that WWIII or ecological collapse will save us from the great unknown outcome of progress and exploration.

If I had to stick a marker in the ground, I'd place it at the moment everyone saw that earth rise shot:

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/946xvariable_...

See any gods in there? See anything that cares about us? Nope. All I see is a tiny grain of sand in an endless black void of nothingness. We are basically dust mites living on that grain of sand. This photo basically proves that we know very little about where we are, where we come from, and where we are going. People looked at that picture and said it was beautiful and inspiring, but secretly somewhere deep inside I wonder if the reaction wasn't metaphysical horror...

Stare at it for a while... you'll see it.

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#14

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 9:20 PM UTC

rpedela wrote: post #12

api wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you cite is in or closely related to the IT sector, which is the exception. Every other sector has gone cold or even backwards since ~1970.

There has been plenty of innovation. When mature, electric vehicles mean the cost of fuel is essentially zero. Whenever there has a been a massive drop in energy costs, there has also been an economic boom. Electric vehicles also mean no more air pollution from vehicles which means a healthier population and fewer medical bills. Then you have the whole AI thing which promises to drastically reduce, if not eliminate,…

> When mature, electric vehicles mean the cost of fuel is essentially zero. Whenever there has a been a massive drop in energy costs, there has also been an economic boom.

But the first sentence is wrong -- it only means the cost of energy for a vehicle is equal to the cost of the same energy on the electric grid, plus the cost of wear on the onboard storage system (battery, etc.)

Unless your definition of "mature" for electric vehicles includes existing in a world where energy costs on the electric grid are essentially zero (which is a whole lot bigger of an advance than electric vehicles, and applies a lot more broadly!), mature electric vehicle technology doesn't mean that the energy cost for vehicles in essentially zero, either.

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#15

Post by mendort » Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 9:21 PM UTC

fidotron wrote: post #10

api wrote: post #3

"I sort-of date the end of rapid technological progress to the late-60s or early-70s. At that point something more or less broke in this country and in the western world more generally which has put us into a zone where there’s much slower technological progress." I've believed for years that we entered something like a minor dark age (dim age?) on or about 1970, and that computers have become synonymous with "techno…

The cold war having gone by the tipping point was also a very large factor. This tied into the moonrace, and the spin off innovations from that. As a side note, It has always annoyed me that there's a loud contingent of people that object to human space travel on the basis it's not the most efficient way to conduct science, because that is not the point of it. It is a signal of intent, throwing the baton far into the…

The end of the cold war also meant the end of battling propagandas between east and west. Maybe what we're feeling is a result of no one telling us stories any more, and not a result of any real change.

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#16

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 9:24 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #14

rpedela wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has been plenty of innovation. When mature, electric vehicles mean the cost of fuel is essentially zero. Whenever there has a been a massive drop in energy costs, there has also been an economic boom. Electric vehicles also mean no more air pollution from vehicles which means a healthier population and fewer medical bills. Then you have the whole AI thing which promises to drastically reduce, if not eliminate,…

> When mature, electric vehicles mean the cost of fuel is essentially zero. Whenever there has a been a massive drop in energy costs, there has also been an economic boom. But the first sentence is wrong -- it only means the cost of energy for a vehicle is equal to the cost of the same energy on the electric grid, plus the cost of wear on the onboard storage system (battery, etc.) Unless your definition of "mature" f…

I agree with your point, but I think an interesting aspect is that a shift toward pushing our transportation energy through the grid might (maybe) lead to some additional economies of scale that could bring down energy costs more broadly. That said, there might instead be diseconomies of scale that dominate - so certainly not a sure thing.

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#17

Post by therzathegza » Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 9:24 PM UTC

I think the article unfairly bashes rail transport by singling out coal. If you read Warren Buffett's writings, his investment in rail was mostly due to being able to move something 500 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel. Regardless of what is being carried, there are very few things that efficient. Coal sucks, but but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater there.

As for the science section, claiming that productivity per scientist is Interesting article, but seems to be a pretty pessimistic outlook.

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#18

Post by possibilistic » Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 9:27 PM UTC

api wrote: post #13

fidotron wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cold war having gone by the tipping point was also a very large factor. This tied into the moonrace, and the spin off innovations from that. As a side note, It has always annoyed me that there's a loud contingent of people that object to human space travel on the basis it's not the most efficient way to conduct science, because that is not the point of it. It is a signal of intent, throwing the baton far into the…

> It has always annoyed me that there's a loud contingent of people that object to human space travel on the basis it's not the most efficient way to conduct science... Sometimes I actually blame Skepticism. I'm not talking about skepticism mind you, but Skepticism-- the capital-S variety that became so popular in science starting in the 1970s as a reaction against things like the new age and the resurgence of religi…

Blaming skepticism is an interesting point and makes me wonder. What about the publishing culture? Does it map more closely to incrementalism, or is it just that the surface area of the problem space has grown too vast for the human mind to generally see the bigger picture?

Should empiricism be changed to allow fuzziness and uncertainty within the process? Scientific truth seems like a problem space similar to those amenable to metaheuristics. We don't know the form of the optimal / most true model. I'm not positing this for physics. Mainly systems biology and big data fields.

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#19

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 9:29 PM UTC

We're close to getting cars that can drive themselves. We have cars that can detect when the brakes are locking and fix it, so that you never go into a skid. We have railroad locomotives that can tell when an axle is just starting to slip, and cut the power to that one axle, so that the wheels never slip even at full power on slick rails. We have jet aircraft engines that can report when a part is getting close to failure, so that it can be replaced at a soon-but-convenient time before it actually fails in flight.

Desktop computers. Laptops. Cell phones. CT scanners. The internet. The Large Hadron Collider. The Hubble Space Telescope. Progress has slowed since the 1970s? Really?

Progress in physical things has not so much slowed since the 1970s; it has gone into improving efficiency, convenience, and reliability. For example: In the 1970s, you were supposed to tune a car engine (plugs, points, timing) regularly. On my 2005, I had to do it after 100,000 miles. It used to be a great achievement to keep a car running for 100,000 miles; now it's just time for the first tuneup. For another: My 2005 is far more stable and easy to drive than what I had in the 1970s. This means I crash less often. That's progress.

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#20

Post by seanflyon » Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 9:30 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #14

rpedela wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has been plenty of innovation. When mature, electric vehicles mean the cost of fuel is essentially zero. Whenever there has a been a massive drop in energy costs, there has also been an economic boom. Electric vehicles also mean no more air pollution from vehicles which means a healthier population and fewer medical bills. Then you have the whole AI thing which promises to drastically reduce, if not eliminate,…

> When mature, electric vehicles mean the cost of fuel is essentially zero. Whenever there has a been a massive drop in energy costs, there has also been an economic boom. But the first sentence is wrong -- it only means the cost of energy for a vehicle is equal to the cost of the same energy on the electric grid, plus the cost of wear on the onboard storage system (battery, etc.) Unless your definition of "mature" f…

"essentially zero" is an exaggeration, but electric cars are dramatically cheaper to fuel. They use much less energy and the energy they use is in a much cheaper form (electricity vs gasoline).