> Centralized (possibly randomized) wire tapping. I think some of those predictions were pretty spot on.
Look at the schematic: people predicted that that would never come to pass.
Asking the wrong questions
51–60 of 90 posts
Re: Asking the wrong questions
#52I will relate to my observation in Harry Potter books. Harry Potter universe has time machine which we know scientifically are impossible while in the same HP universe, Hermoine has to physically go to the forbidden library to read books. JK Rowling couldn't think of wikipedia or internet which both exist in real world but not time travel.
Strong encryption is another thing that sci-fi authors seem to miss. For example 1998's Moonwar has people sneaking communications on laser beams instead of radio waves because spies won't be able to eavesdrop on the straight-line laser without physically going to its location. That, despite the internet already using encryption for financial transactions in real life.
Re: Asking the wrong questions
#53I will relate to my observation in Harry Potter books. Harry Potter universe has time machine which we know scientifically are impossible while in the same HP universe, Hermoine has to physically go to the forbidden library to read books. JK Rowling couldn't think of wikipedia or internet which both exist in real world but not time travel.
Strong encryption is another thing that sci-fi authors seem to miss. For example 1998's Moonwar has people sneaking communications on laser beams instead of radio waves because spies won't be able to eavesdrop on the straight-line laser without physically going to its location. That, despite the internet already using encryption for financial transactions in real life.
Yeah but how do you do key distribution and management? The physical security and "forward secrecy" (in the loose sense) afforded by an ephemeral transmission that can only be received in a fixed location is non-negligible [1].
Re: Asking the wrong questions
#54This is a bit banal. Nobody can predict second and third order effects reliably because they don't know how to weight one predicted effect vs another to know how they'll intersect and interact. Extrapolation for any one technology usually works well for a short distance into the future (a decade or so), but the chances of a technology being blindsided by something else entirely rapidly rise over time.
It's not second or third order effects, it's the way that technologies facilitate social changes that trips people up.
The astounding thing about the Internet isn't just that it's possible to do all kinds of science fiction things with it, but that it has no single inventor.
In fact a public internet for shopping, dating, and photo sharing was never even considered as a goal when the core technologies were being RFC'd.
The real value of technology only appears when it intersects with user land. The broader the take-up, the bigger the potential for bottom-up social and political effects.
Telegraphy, radio, heavier than air flight, internal combustion ground cars, TV, and even printing were all defined by the political and social changes they created far more than by the physics that made them work.
So traditionally when someone prognosticates about a new shiny thing they assume their culture won't change and the technology will somehow fit into it.
Far more often, the most interesting thing about new technology is the way it affects belief systems, economic and social activity, and political power relationships.
Re: Asking the wrong questions
#55Applied AI will be the next "nobody knew how fundamentally things would change." I don't believe in the singularity (at least as currently envisioned) but I do believe we need to figure out what a society must look like when most human beings are, almost literally, not useful for commercial employment. Like, the whole tenets of a market economy and capitalist ownership will smash into the tenets of human worth and th…
If technology makes the cost of supporting a person's life is nearly zero, then the wages they'll demand can also approach zero. So a human can undercut a robot worker on cost.
Currently, that doesn't happen because humans are so expensive to maintain - they'd sooner starve to death than work for less money than they need to keep themselves alive. But it's more than before. We do have a huge tertiary sector of the economy which is basically humans being employed to do low-value or unnecessary work because they're so plentiful and cheap.
Re: Asking the wrong questions
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have strong cryptography and near-instant communication protocols. Why the hell is there a postal service in every country, and why is the quality of the postal service an indication of sophistication rather than lack of development in a country?
> Why the hell is there a postal service in every country Because delivery of packages to rural areas is terribly unprofitable. Certain things need to be socialized in order to keep a country connected and enable development. Without things like the post office, rural electrification, and the Eisenhower Interstate system, vast swatches of the US would have zero economic output.
Please read the parent to my comment, and particularly the last sentence of that.
Context is important.
Re: Asking the wrong questions
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have strong cryptography and near-instant communication protocols. Why the hell is there a postal service in every country, and why is the quality of the postal service an indication of sophistication rather than lack of development in a country?
I'm not sure if this is meant to be rhetorical? Either way - ideally you have postal service AND electronic communication, and the quality of both reflect on the country. It's a fair question though - anecdotally, the two main uses for the postal service nowadays (in countries with internet access) are package deliveries and unsolicited marketing (possibly print subscriptions factor in). To my mind, the unique advant…
Please read the parent to my comment, and particularly the last sentence of that.
Context is important.
Re: Asking the wrong questions
#58I will relate to my observation in Harry Potter books. Harry Potter universe has time machine which we know scientifically are impossible while in the same HP universe, Hermoine has to physically go to the forbidden library to read books. JK Rowling couldn't think of wikipedia or internet which both exist in real world but not time travel.
It is a central feature to the Harry Potter universe that technology is overlooked, because magic. That is why everything looks rather antiquated on the surface, because all the advances are made in magic and nobody bothers with other stuff that is perceived to be less effective or important.
Almost every building is rather precariously built and even absurd in details, because there is no value put in structural engineering, you just magic it all together.
Why ever would they use the Internet? They all perceive their own culture to be superior, and all their advances are bound up in magic.
Re: Asking the wrong questions
#59I really liked this article because it was a concise demonstration of the 'known' solution problem. A while ago[1] there was a discussion of what folks from the 19th century thought the world would be like in the 20th century. The common theme is that the futurists could never anticipate a change to a technology they didn't have any experience with. The rise of communications as a means of linking people together was completely missed, even by the Dick Tracy types who had wristwatch phones. Why? Because not only did it communicate like everyone had experienced (telegraph, telephone) it persisted with bulletin boards, MUDS, Facebook, and Twitter.
That is why I always try to ask a question my Dad suggested I ask when looking a future predictions, "What is so common place that they can't see it changing?" That is so difficult to do. Things like "What would the future be like if there literally was no disease and any physical injury could be patched up quickly?" Or "Energy is suddenly free?" or "Lie detection becomes infallible?" etc. Very tough to do.
Re: Asking the wrong questions
#60I have to say I find this piece pretty disappointing. Slightly smug throughout, which is easy in retrospect, with approximately zero to add to the conversation. The thesis seems to be: The future is hard to predict, and even if you can, it's hard to get the timeline right. No shit. Is this what VCs do with their spare time? Remember granddad and contemplate uncertainty?