This is shallow. Game theory and coordination is the answer. Otherwise it's the same depth level as "if only the soldiers just stopped shooting at each other, the war would end".
[deleted]
Why Tech Inevitability is Self-Defeating
31–40 of 62 posts
Re: Why Tech Inevitability is Self-Defeating
#32TL;DR: Think for yourself.
Re: Why Tech Inevitability is Self-Defeating
#33Technology is inevitable if a lot of people can independently do it without huge resources, and the result is useful. - Personal computing - inevitable. Once ICs became cheap, it started happening, with no one effort dominating. - Moon landing - not inevitable. Huge resource commitment required, and not repeated since. - Internal combustion engine - inevitable. Once fuels and steel were available, it was possible to…
Thank you for the comment and engaging with my thinking. You're using hindsight to define inevitability, which is exactly the circular reasoning my essay critiques. "It happened widely, therefore it was inevitable" isn't a useful framework, it's survivorship bias. Using your IC example: they became cheap because of massive government investment in the space program and military procurement, not natural law. The Apoll…
You examples with human cloning and some chemicals/drugs plus potentially nuclear energy being first favored then disfavored (now seems to be getting back to favors) are telling; it shows that outside the pure properties of technology itself, a lot depends on a given society/civilization value systems and who gets to decide what's important and allowed and what's not
Re: Why Tech Inevitability is Self-Defeating
#34Technology is inevitable if a lot of people can independently do it without huge resources, and the result is useful. - Personal computing - inevitable. Once ICs became cheap, it started happening, with no one effort dominating. - Moon landing - not inevitable. Huge resource commitment required, and not repeated since. - Internal combustion engine - inevitable. Once fuels and steel were available, it was possible to…
Thank you for the comment and engaging with my thinking. You're using hindsight to define inevitability, which is exactly the circular reasoning my essay critiques. "It happened widely, therefore it was inevitable" isn't a useful framework, it's survivorship bias. Using your IC example: they became cheap because of massive government investment in the space program and military procurement, not natural law. The Apoll…
> The counterfactual test: if these were truly inevitable, we'd see simultaneous independent invention everywhere
I don't think there is any reason to think that " a technology was inevitable" implies that the technology would be invented simultaneously in multiple places
Re: Why Tech Inevitability is Self-Defeating
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for the comment and engaging with my thinking. You're using hindsight to define inevitability, which is exactly the circular reasoning my essay critiques. "It happened widely, therefore it was inevitable" isn't a useful framework, it's survivorship bias. Using your IC example: they became cheap because of massive government investment in the space program and military procurement, not natural law. The Apoll…
An interesting counterpoint to the inevitability of ICs: Consider East Germany's semiconductor industry. They had state backing and proof of viability but they still couldn't generate a competitive product. Making things is _hard_, and embodied expertise is critical.
Great example. Thanks a lot! Can I add it my essay?
Re: Why Tech Inevitability is Self-Defeating
#36Interesting, beautifully written; I especially like the ending:
"Inevitability is rhetoric, not truth. Predictions aren’t laws of nature, they are acts of persuasion. And because no one can ever know how much is determined and how much is open, the only rational stance is to live as agents. Supersonic flight once looked inevitable until people stopped it. You, too, have already reshaped the world once; you can do it again. Don’t give away your power."
Re: Why Tech Inevitability is Self-Defeating
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
An interesting counterpoint to the inevitability of ICs: Consider East Germany's semiconductor industry. They had state backing and proof of viability but they still couldn't generate a competitive product. Making things is _hard_, and embodied expertise is critical.
Great example. Thanks a lot! Can I add it my essay?
Sure! I'd recommend you use a more reliable reference than some dude online vaguely recalling a something he read four+ years ago :)
Re: Why Tech Inevitability is Self-Defeating
#38Technology is inevitable if a lot of people can independently do it without huge resources, and the result is useful. - Personal computing - inevitable. Once ICs became cheap, it started happening, with no one effort dominating. - Moon landing - not inevitable. Huge resource commitment required, and not repeated since. - Internal combustion engine - inevitable. Once fuels and steel were available, it was possible to…
Thank you for the comment and engaging with my thinking. You're using hindsight to define inevitability, which is exactly the circular reasoning my essay critiques. "It happened widely, therefore it was inevitable" isn't a useful framework, it's survivorship bias. Using your IC example: they became cheap because of massive government investment in the space program and military procurement, not natural law. The Apoll…
> Personal computing almost died multiple times. Xerox PARC had it all in 1973 but management killed it. IBM thought the market was ~5 computers total. The Homebrew Computer Club was nearly shut down for copyright infringement. Any of these inflection points going differently changes history.
Yes, history would be different, but that doesn't mean ICs and PCs weren't inevitable. As technology improves the capital required to innovate drops. At some point hobbyists can start making ICs at home. I think something like this happened with 3D printing.
> The counterfactual test: if these were truly inevitable, we'd see simultaneous independent invention everywhere. Instead we see: singular inventors, path dependence, and technologies that almost weren't (or actually weren't: where's our supersonic passenger travel?).
I disagree. Inevitability means that something will manifest at some point on a long enough timeline, not that it will necessarily manifest nearly concurrently on that timeline. Concurrent invention happens a lot and is a strong argument for inevitability, but isn't strictly necessary for inevitability.
For example, death is inevitable, even if we solve aging; we know you won't involuntarily die of old age in such a world, but you will die of something else, even if it's the heat death of the universe.
Re: Why Tech Inevitability is Self-Defeating
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for engaging. I think you meant it's obvious rather than shallow? If so, yes I agree but a lot of my friends disagree so I wrote this as rigorously as possible to explain why this is obvious. That being said, regarding game theory and coordination: Wars DO end when people change the game's parameters. WWI's Christmas Truce happened despite every incentive against it. Catalonia chose not to pursue independence…
> My point isn't that coordination is easy - it's that treating it as impossible becomes self-fulfilling. While I see what you are getting at, and I think its super important we come up with philosophical frameworks to push back on the central idea in question (ie, the moral hazard of "its gonna happen anyway so why not pour a little more into the river").... I think your writing/responses miss the central point. As…
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think there's a misunderstanding (maybe my text wasn't clear. If so please point out where so I can fix it).
We actually agree: even if the probability of successful coordination is only 10%, accepting inevitability makes it 0%. That difference matters enormously given the stakes. My argument isn't "coordination is definitely possible" but rather "believing it's impossible guarantees failure." When tech leaders say "AGI is inevitable," they're not describing reality; they're shaping it by discouraging attempts to coordinate. Human cloning hasn't happened because we maintain active resistance despite technical feasibility.
You're asking for credible paths with P > 0. I'm saying: knowing P with certainty is impossible, so accepting P = 1 narratives makes alternative paths invisible. The path emerges through trial and error, not before it.
Re: Why Tech Inevitability is Self-Defeating
#40Interesting, beautifully written; I especially like the ending: "Inevitability is rhetoric, not truth. Predictions aren’t laws of nature, they are acts of persuasion. And because no one can ever know how much is determined and how much is open, the only rational stance is to live as agents. Supersonic flight once looked inevitable until people stopped it. You, too, have already reshaped the world once; you can do it…
thanks a lot! I appreciate it