Why things might have taken so long

Post by razorunreal » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

jstanley wrote: post #111

PeterStuer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that individual rational optimization can and does lead to collective deterioration. In the abstract: If a given adoption has an individual utility of +1, and a collective detriment of -0.01, then for each rational individual actor in non small populations the decision to adopt is a net improvement even though the resulting utility for all is far below 0. This is why the old excuse of 'vote with your w…

> If a given adoption has an individual utility of +1, and a collective detriment of -0.01, OK but imagine if everyone in the world did the "bad thing". The world would gain 8 billion utility and lose 800 million, so it's still winning. I think you mean something like an individual utility of +1 and a collective detriment of -1.01?

Post by mannykannot » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:46 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #91

daveFNbuck wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human-powered flight does exist, it's just not very good because people are weak and heavy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-powered_aircraft

It's "not very good" not because people are this or that, but because... it isn't very good yet: which means it needs to get better. That's exactly what inventing is about: making (existing) things better, until they're so much better, they become a different thing altogether.

Post by melling » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #82

melling wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But only a few million cores are doing worthwhile work. Most of us aren’t contributing to the advancement of knowledge, for example. If we could up our utilization with more people doing R&D, for instance, we’d accumulate knowledge much faster.

A fast search algorithm is to have 1000 threads check all 1000 array elements at the same time. Possibly only one thread will find the value you're looking for, but it's not like the other 999 threads were wasting their time.

Post by anonytrary » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 5:09 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #35

simonbarker87 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the case, the famous (if apocryphal) quote of "everything that can be invented has been invented" made in 1900 by the head of the US patent office was clearly wrong and made either in jest or due to an enormous lack of imagination. The point is that there is always more to invent and the possibilities keep increasing. There are plenty of inventions yet to make, from complex AI enabled devices down to the…

> This is not the case, the famous (if apocryphal) quote of "everything that can be invented has been invented" made in 1900 by the head of the US patent office was clearly wrong and made either in jest or due to an enormous lack of imagination. The point is that there is always more to invent and the possibilities keep increasing. Just because somebody said something that was wrong 100 years ago, doesn't mean it's a…

Post by anonytrary » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 5:11 PM UTC

Joe-Z wrote: post #54

Swizec wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have absolutely no contract with the universe or nature that guarantees us that there's "always more to invent", even less so that "the possibilities keep increasing". Think of human knowledge as a circle. The edge of that circle is the edge of human knowledge. Inventing a thing makes a little bump in the circle that pushes the edge outwards. The bigger the circle, the bigger the circumference, the more possibil…

That's just a metaphor, and exactly of the type which GP argued against. To illustrate GP's point metaphorically: Think of human knowledge as discovered areas on a map. The dark areas are what is still unknown to us. Inventing a thing makes a little spot on the map visible. The more you have discovered, the less you still have to discover. (And to extend it a bit: Of course you can make the already discovered areas m…