Live data from Hacker News

Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

danwang.co

51–60 of 155 posts

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is, if I had to pick just one of those two, I'd definitely go for online payments.

So did everybody else. That's why we got online payments. I wonder if much of the angst about how the future hasn't turned out the way we wanted is really "We got everything we wanted and it turns out what we wanted is this ?" Markets are really good at fulfilling peoples' desires, but the problem is they fulfill people's actual wants, not what they wish they wanted. So it's like turning a spotlight on our desires an…

[deleted]

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#52
Thiel is focused on lagging indicators and this results in excessive pessimism.

For example, the average price of energy is a lagging indicator. If you're focused on this then you'll completely miss all improvements in the cost of clean energy until the day when it's better than the average price of all energy. In fact, in the early days it's just making the average price more expensive.

If you want to know where we're going rather than looking in the rear-view mirror, you need separate metrics for watching new tech while it's still new and more expensive.

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#53

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 fa…

I agree some progress has occurred since 1970, but the pace of totally new ideas has slowed considerably. We're in the Age of Moderate Improvement.

I have often wondered what made the West so great during its golden age of innovation (and to answer what we're missing today) and think it can be attributed to a single-mindedness in our culture and leadership towards a common goal.

The Industrial Revolution (and American Revolution) would not have been possible without the overwhelmingly popular Age of Enlightenment (a cultural movement of intellectual reform that emphasized reason over tradition). Such multi-national cooperation and exchange of ideas had been previously unprecedented. The intellectuals of each country banded together because they had a common enemy (entrenched tradition, religion, and monarchy).

Similar patterns (large-scale cooperation towards a common goal) can be found in the Second Industrial Revolution, the Atomic Age, and the Space Race.

So the question remains: what singular goal(s) do we have today?

The Internet has a great deal of potential to be used as a vehicle for a new intellectual revolution that may drive a new age of progress. I've seen a few hints of this in the OSS community and Silicon Valley but so far neither have found a common goal that resonates strongly enough.

tl;dr : The want of progress is not specific enough to inspire. We need a new, overarching goal to drive the next age of progress.

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#54
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of animal feed in the US is GMO. (For starters, roundup ready field corn and soy).

That is true but Genetic Engineering has largely been limited to cross-breeding plants. You truly lack imagination if think that roundup resistant crops represent the pinnacle of Genetic Engineering.

[deleted]

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#55

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 fa…

Not to mention, whatever we are doing as a society seems to have dramatically reduced the rates of crime (especially violent crime).

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#56

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 produc…

Actually there have never been so many publications per scientist as there is now. Nearly every metric that is measurable, have been growing exponentially for the last century (no. of scientists, publications, research institutions etc.). There are some indications that we are nearing the top of the s-curve however.

Which begs the question: why is all that research not resulting in equal exponential innovation in our society?

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#57

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 fa…

And yet over 3B (billion) people are below the poverty line...

EDIT:

Luckily, weapons systems are much more effective than they were in the 1970s, so I guess we will be able to fend off the poor.

EDIT2:

Look, downvote all you want...the elephant in the room is that the rewards and advances in technology are not and can not be distributed evenly. Even in a first-world nation such as the US, so many of the products listed in my parent post are out-of-reach of anyone without significant financial means. CT scans, for example--what does imaging matter if you can't afford it?

You think that the starving huddled masses are just going to sit outside the walls and go "Man, sure wish I could live there?". That's never how history has worked out, you nitwits.

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#58
Maybe the low hanging fruit have been picked but I think there will be a steady stream of innovation in the near future - more efficient and cheaper renewables, better battery tech, better cures to disease etc. I think the next big shift will happen when the remaining 4-5 billion people are empowered with high quality education and computing devices and the potential of the whole of humanity can be put to use.

It's a numbers game, more brains working on innovation=more innovation. This global levelling of the playing field and equal access to technology and means of innovation is playing out slowly, maybe too slowly for it to feel like an "acceleration" to us who live through it. Give it another 10-20 years. Right now it's like we're running at 20% capacity when you look at the total number of people on the planet, at how much of that potential is not utilised.

China will take the lead, already has started to in some cases (in the case of AI, Andrew Ng's jump to Baidu was interesting) - http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2014/08/28/interview-i...

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#59
Has technological progress slowed since the 1970s? I think there's evidence technology is moving along quite quickly:

We've gone from expensive, slow, geographically-constrained telegrams and short-range, anarchic CB radio to gigahertz communication, carrying gigabits of data in the pockets of 1.5 Gigapeople.

We have the ISS, in space, 257 miles above us, 24/7, docking several times weekly with spacecraft from several continents. We have GPS. We have a world-wide data network and speech-controlled word-processing and publishing so billions of people can write and deliver a book, paper, speech, etc. with pictures and diagrams complete with automatic language translation. The days of hand-staining long-exposure slide film for use in a projector are over.

We eradicated smallpox. We invented MRI, robotic surgery, Tamoxifen, Raloxifene. We have successfully transplanted hearts and lungs, livers, intestines, hands, arms, legs and even faces, bladders, ovaries and penises.

We've gone from one farmer supplying 57.7 people to 155 people.

Yes you can point to vast stretches of mediocre scientists and companies who are also-rans. That's just a condition of humanity. Not everyone can sequence the entire human genome. If someone wants much more miraculous results out of the natural world than what we have today, you're seeking mystical discoveries, not technological ones.

Re: Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation?

#60

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 produc…

I think looking at it as pessimistic is simply wrong. The point is not to be optimistic but to look around and explain the major challenges that seem to be impeding rapid advancement.

The biggest problem I see in science seems to be the incentive structure (publish or perish). This overwhelmingly biases against large scale breakthroughs and towards minor amendments and advances. I remember when I first started doing research around 2011 I was extremely disappointed by the low quality and shallow vision of a lot of research being produced today (this was in AI). The volume was incredibly but the content was anemic. So I don't think the <1% figure is totally wrong-headed - we're in an age of 9-5 scientists whose desires to create long-term breakthroughs are often met with negative incentives while bulk publishing low-quality content is considered productive and desirable.

Post reply on HN