Ask HN: Do you think technology progress will flatten out 100 years from now
Other than few areas like interplanetary travel, will there be enough frontiers for humans to explore once we hit the limits of physics
Edit: I really mean 100 years from now - that's a long period of time - to get a perspective - think about the progress we made just in the last 10 years in technology - and fact that we are doing this at an exponential rate
33 comments
No. I think what we consider technology now will be very different in 100 years. Where previously, the discovery of fire or the invention of wheels were technology and no one at the time could conceive of the idea of the Internet let alone ML. I believe in 100 years, there will be so much progress in technology that the idea that technology is limited by physics will be absurd. We're living in an incredible time of free education to the masses via MOOCs and even YouTube tutorials. We have expanded knowledge sharing and learning at a rate that has never been seen in history.
That being said, all this is if we manage to advance our technology fast enough so we can survive climate change and wars at massively destructive scale.
That being said, all this is if we manage to advance our technology fast enough so we can survive climate change and wars at massively destructive scale.
Indeed. Michelson once said "… it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established … An eminent physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."
I think the pessimists of today will be proven wrong in a similar manner.
I think the pessimists of today will be proven wrong in a similar manner.
> the idea that technology is limited by physics will be absurd
What I find absurd is that one could think that physical limits on technology are absurd. Physical limits are exactly the limits on technology, no more no less. The question is what those limits really are and in some cases we do not yet know them but for the most part we have a pretty good idea of what is and is not possible technology wise. It is simply up to us to try to maximize our potential within those limits.
What I find absurd is that one could think that physical limits on technology are absurd. Physical limits are exactly the limits on technology, no more no less. The question is what those limits really are and in some cases we do not yet know them but for the most part we have a pretty good idea of what is and is not possible technology wise. It is simply up to us to try to maximize our potential within those limits.
> The question is what those limits really are and in some cases we do not yet know them but for the most part we have a pretty good idea of what is and is not possible technology wise.
I don't think so. We have no idea what those limits really are. What you're saying now would be like someone from the 1850s, before the invention of electricity, claims that there's no way that we can communicate instantaneously with people on the other side of the planet, actually scratch that, make that people from the next town over, because PHYSICS! I mean, it just isn't possible because we're limited by the physical distance, right?
I think it's silly to think that we can even predict what the new physical limits will look like in 100 years. At least I hope that is the case. Still pissed off that we don't have flying cars yet though.
I don't think so. We have no idea what those limits really are. What you're saying now would be like someone from the 1850s, before the invention of electricity, claims that there's no way that we can communicate instantaneously with people on the other side of the planet, actually scratch that, make that people from the next town over, because PHYSICS! I mean, it just isn't possible because we're limited by the physical distance, right?
I think it's silly to think that we can even predict what the new physical limits will look like in 100 years. At least I hope that is the case. Still pissed off that we don't have flying cars yet though.
"In my opinion, all previous advances in the various lines of invention will appear totally insignificant when compared with those which the present century will witness. I almost wish that I might live my life over again to see the wonders which are at the threshold." Charles Holland Duell, 1902
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Holland_Duell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Holland_Duell
I'm also optimistic about technological progress, but if you look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Engineerin...
The 21st century might look a bit lackluster so far.
The 21st century might look a bit lackluster so far.
People tend to think that around 200 years ago humans suddenly became much more enlightened and we just randomly started to see rapid technological progress, which will forever be the solution to any and all problems humans face.
But technology is not the product of sheer human brilliance, but rather something that was purchased with highly available cheap energy. Imagine your timeline of our exponential progress and you'll find it maps pretty well to this timeline of terawatts-hours of fossil fuels [1].
But in the next 100 years we face two related problems that stem directly from this abundance of cheap energy. One problem is the one caused by climate change and the other is the inevitable depletion of natural resource (including those very fossil fuels). The common HN response is that we'll magically fix both of these with "technology!" but once you realize that our technological brilliance is fueled by hydrocarbons you realize that solving the problem of hydrocarbons is pretty much trickier than all the other problems we've solved.
And the truth is, despite what people will tell you, we don't have any solutions to the real problems we're facing. We don't have any known viable pathway to large scale energy storage required for a fully renewable grid, we don't have any idea how to produce the liquid fuels at scale essential to a global economy (you need high energy density fuels to efficiently transport goods), we don't know how to engineer global scale carbon capture and storage.
And I know people will likely link to a bunch of research projects that "look promising!" But to go from promising research to global scale production takes... tons of energy.
Technological progress is just a proxy for high energy density fuel consumption. Given unlimited high energy density fuels and a planet with infinite resources, yes we would also produce exponentially more marvelous things. But the next challenge is how to deal with the consequence of burning far too many high energy density fuels on a limited planet and running into the limitations of energy.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
But technology is not the product of sheer human brilliance, but rather something that was purchased with highly available cheap energy. Imagine your timeline of our exponential progress and you'll find it maps pretty well to this timeline of terawatts-hours of fossil fuels [1].
But in the next 100 years we face two related problems that stem directly from this abundance of cheap energy. One problem is the one caused by climate change and the other is the inevitable depletion of natural resource (including those very fossil fuels). The common HN response is that we'll magically fix both of these with "technology!" but once you realize that our technological brilliance is fueled by hydrocarbons you realize that solving the problem of hydrocarbons is pretty much trickier than all the other problems we've solved.
And the truth is, despite what people will tell you, we don't have any solutions to the real problems we're facing. We don't have any known viable pathway to large scale energy storage required for a fully renewable grid, we don't have any idea how to produce the liquid fuels at scale essential to a global economy (you need high energy density fuels to efficiently transport goods), we don't know how to engineer global scale carbon capture and storage.
And I know people will likely link to a bunch of research projects that "look promising!" But to go from promising research to global scale production takes... tons of energy.
Technological progress is just a proxy for high energy density fuel consumption. Given unlimited high energy density fuels and a planet with infinite resources, yes we would also produce exponentially more marvelous things. But the next challenge is how to deal with the consequence of burning far too many high energy density fuels on a limited planet and running into the limitations of energy.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
I don't think it's clear that the options are either that we continue to progress exponentially or stagnate. Both of those seem like possibilities in the medium-term, but I wouldn't rule out the possibilities of decline (in the worst case) or cyclical re-development of the same ideas.
Technological discovery doesn't just happen in a vacuum. There needs to be a societal production of potential new inventors and scientists. Where their interests lie is to some extent influenced by the culture they grow up in, and which research interests will receive funding (or societal status) is also dependent on culture, etc. Worse, if a problem has been widely solved using a bad solution, there is no real desire for a good one.
Take electrical engineering and circuit design as an example. I would make the case that despite the immense and obvious success of computers, our society is in some significant way worse off than it was 50 years ago if you were to measure our collective ability to solve new problems using electrical engineering. Fewer and fewer electrical engineers are being educated, while the competency threshold of the field is rising. As that threshold rises, our education system shifts from teaching people to invent things to teaching them about practical skills like how to work all the menus in [some modeling tool], and how to generate report templates for MS Word.
Software is so new that we've barely exceeded a single human lifespan (hardly enough time for information to get lost is it?), but how many times have you seen companies with a code base that was written by some greybeard in the 80's, which is critical to the success of the company but nobody understands? When the company realised that, did they try to address the root of the problem, or did they decide to keep piling shit on top of what they already had?
It may be that software itself is the problem. Software allows you to snapshot your current problem solving capacity and continue delivering it long after the problem solvers themselves are gone. Maybe if we're lucky, the current generation of AI researchers will get us to something that approaches human level intelligence before these problems become intractable.
Technological discovery doesn't just happen in a vacuum. There needs to be a societal production of potential new inventors and scientists. Where their interests lie is to some extent influenced by the culture they grow up in, and which research interests will receive funding (or societal status) is also dependent on culture, etc. Worse, if a problem has been widely solved using a bad solution, there is no real desire for a good one.
Take electrical engineering and circuit design as an example. I would make the case that despite the immense and obvious success of computers, our society is in some significant way worse off than it was 50 years ago if you were to measure our collective ability to solve new problems using electrical engineering. Fewer and fewer electrical engineers are being educated, while the competency threshold of the field is rising. As that threshold rises, our education system shifts from teaching people to invent things to teaching them about practical skills like how to work all the menus in [some modeling tool], and how to generate report templates for MS Word.
Software is so new that we've barely exceeded a single human lifespan (hardly enough time for information to get lost is it?), but how many times have you seen companies with a code base that was written by some greybeard in the 80's, which is critical to the success of the company but nobody understands? When the company realised that, did they try to address the root of the problem, or did they decide to keep piling shit on top of what they already had?
It may be that software itself is the problem. Software allows you to snapshot your current problem solving capacity and continue delivering it long after the problem solvers themselves are gone. Maybe if we're lucky, the current generation of AI researchers will get us to something that approaches human level intelligence before these problems become intractable.
Unfortunately, I believe ecological collapse and resources depletion in the next few decades will hinder technological progress.
that might turn out to be a driving force behind innovation
Immediately made me this of this. A "new" way to store green energy. https://energyvault.ch/
up to the point that we see actual infrastructural collapse.
I mean, I've seen Jeri Elsworth bake her own transistors in the oven and stuff (each one being about the size of your hand) but somehow I can't picture a chip fab based upon such transistors... call me old fashioned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qph8BNrnLY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qph8BNrnLY
Have you heard of generation IV nuclear reactors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
I think the ecological collapse will be avoided, I take as example South Africa and the water crisis [1]. They predict the day 0 (out of water). As the day get closer, everyone started to ratiocinate the water, everybody realized that the problem was just ahead of them that the entire community helped and "the day 0" was moved several times.
It seems to me, but I might be wrong that we are procrastinating with global warming till the issue is really close, then the hair of everyone will stand and the entire population will help.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/04/back-from-the-...
It seems to me, but I might be wrong that we are procrastinating with global warming till the issue is really close, then the hair of everyone will stand and the entire population will help.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/04/back-from-the-...
The trouble is if we reach a tipping point where warming causes big releases of methane then there is nothing we can do. We will be carried along for the ride at that point.
Or the massive investments which have been driving down the cost of solar, wind and battery technology will cross a threshold where it's cheaper than mining coal.
If the technology keeps getting cheaper, the markets will do the migration.
Note. The technology is getting better/cheaper because of investments, some of which is publicly funded.
If the technology keeps getting cheaper, the markets will do the migration.
Note. The technology is getting better/cheaper because of investments, some of which is publicly funded.
I believe ecological collapse will be avoided, but we definitely need people who push forward the idea that it won't, just to keep us on our tip-toes.
E.g. a recent piece of news: https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says...
E.g. a recent piece of news: https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says...
Absolutely.
Either Horizontally if we all die or Vertically, given enough time if you zoom-out enough.
Either Horizontally if we all die or Vertically, given enough time if you zoom-out enough.
There is no limit to complexity.
There are still many many mysteries to solve about life, intelligence, and more generally about complex chemical processes.
Energy efficiency has a limit that we are very far from reaching (how to harvest all of the sun energy productively? without ruining life?)
Human systems: how to reduce waste, make transit faster, make people happier, avoid violence, etc.
I can't think of it all, but no we will not run out of things to discover/invent.
There are still many many mysteries to solve about life, intelligence, and more generally about complex chemical processes.
Energy efficiency has a limit that we are very far from reaching (how to harvest all of the sun energy productively? without ruining life?)
Human systems: how to reduce waste, make transit faster, make people happier, avoid violence, etc.
I can't think of it all, but no we will not run out of things to discover/invent.
We are humans, as soon as we understand how something works, we think we can modify to make it better. So we will always be busy.
Not at all. I believe (although have nothing but “feelings“ to back up my opinion) that the age of grand discoveries made by a single individual which uncovers some fundamental law of nature is over.
Transformative technologies of the kind that can impact all of humankind will most likely be done by a team of very high IQ individuals backed by a mega-corp or a state, most likely coming out of China or the US.
In the next 100 years ML algorithms and the underlying hardware will improve to a point where it’ll maintain context across a longer timeframe than humans are able to and will not only process large data volumes at random to stumble on something that works but it’ll use previously available knowledge across 50 years+ in order not to waste time in useless research directions.
Much like every other major technology I don’t believe these algorithms will exist in isolation and the tech will surface a multiple geographical places on earth.
These ML algorithms will work hand in hand with humanity to create the next transformative technologies and uncover the next set of fundamental laws of nature.
Transformative technologies of the kind that can impact all of humankind will most likely be done by a team of very high IQ individuals backed by a mega-corp or a state, most likely coming out of China or the US.
In the next 100 years ML algorithms and the underlying hardware will improve to a point where it’ll maintain context across a longer timeframe than humans are able to and will not only process large data volumes at random to stumble on something that works but it’ll use previously available knowledge across 50 years+ in order not to waste time in useless research directions.
Much like every other major technology I don’t believe these algorithms will exist in isolation and the tech will surface a multiple geographical places on earth.
These ML algorithms will work hand in hand with humanity to create the next transformative technologies and uncover the next set of fundamental laws of nature.
Just as much backed only by feelings:
I think progress will be brought by teams, but not necessarily made up of "very high IQ individuals". I think incremental progress and community-driven improvements to technology will gradually take us to a new level of integration with the world and with each other.
At the same time I think we can't imagine too well how this will look like, much like how the sci-fi predictions about the world today were only tangentially correct.
I think progress will be brought by teams, but not necessarily made up of "very high IQ individuals". I think incremental progress and community-driven improvements to technology will gradually take us to a new level of integration with the world and with each other.
At the same time I think we can't imagine too well how this will look like, much like how the sci-fi predictions about the world today were only tangentially correct.
Imagine the quality of simulated worlds a hundred years from now. Even if we do hit the limits of physics in physical reality I think virtual reality could be limited only by our imaginations.
By that standard science fiction should qualify as science. It doesn't. Simulated worlds physical reality is about as relevant as what your average 70's sci-fi writer could cook up. As long as those ideas are feasible (say: communications satellites) we may end up with some progress but only where it connects to the real world.
Virtual reality is also limited by physics, because it requires hardware, energy and transmission which are least limited by thermodynamics, quantum effects and the speed of light. In the case of a simulated reality, physics becomes metaphysics, but it still always applies.
Why limit technology to physics, or the limits of physics? There are so many other areas, and perhaps undiscovered areas, of study. If history is any indication, technology can be lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse Difficult to predict the future, but I am optimistic.
There is strong case that innovation peaked 50s and has been slowing down since https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601199/tech-slowdown-thre... .
I wouldn't really see it like that. The limits of physics are with us every day. That is why cars are impractical at speed and why there is latency to other continents. For all the development in technology, it is mostly the same since the 80s. "Just" more of it.
There's always a frontier: the frontier between what we have and what we want. Until humans run out of desires, or satisfy them fully, there will be technological progress. The pace of that progress, however, is very hard to measure or predict.
there are a few holy grails that we have yet to achieve:
unlimited energy, and a pollution free environment. the latter means not only renewable energy but the elimination of most forms of plastic and other pollutants. given how much plastic we use now, that is a major undertaking.
i also believe that with more and more automation, humanity will be able to free up resources to put into education, and there is no end to imagine what a society full of highly educated people can possibly achieve.
unlimited energy, and a pollution free environment. the latter means not only renewable energy but the elimination of most forms of plastic and other pollutants. given how much plastic we use now, that is a major undertaking.
i also believe that with more and more automation, humanity will be able to free up resources to put into education, and there is no end to imagine what a society full of highly educated people can possibly achieve.
Not at all. Read a biology book, or a book on fundamental physics. We really don't understand much about the world yet.
Eventually, though if things go well more than 100 years. You mention physics, which is one important limitation, but there are others.
The global human population is limited and will likely peak and begin to decline within 100 years. [1] Many technologies are limited by the size of the supply chain required to produce them and the scale of factory required to make the technology cost-effective.
For an economy the size of a village, you are never going to have a self-sustaining technology level much higher than a blacksmith shop. Why? Because higher technology requires higher level inputs -- precision parts, refined materials, components that are produced in high tech factories.
The economy is like a pyramid, with the highest technology outputs being the few top layers at the top. Each higher tech layer depends on larger layers below -- the different components and feedstocks and tools required in production of that technology. The overall size of the economy limits the sustainable height of the pyramid.
Currently the economic/technology pyramid size is growing, driven by growth of human population and globalization of the economy. There are also efficieny effects where higher technology decreases the labor required for the lower layers of the pyramid.
When human population peaks and the economy is fully globalized, continued growth of the economic/technology pyramid will be limited to efficiency gains.
My feeling is population will have peaked but globalization will still be ongoing 100 years from now.
It is harder to forecast the limit of efficiency gains -- when robots are smart enough to generally do any work that humans can, what will be the efficiency limits on such robots? I don't expect that to be all played out in 100 years.
The big wildcard is if we extinct ourselves or otherwise cause a huge setback. Biotech is close to the level where engineering an extinction virus is a possible by a lone individual with access to the right lab. Can we survive the technological ability of genocide viruses becoming widespread?
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/lutz_et_al_2018_d...
The global human population is limited and will likely peak and begin to decline within 100 years. [1] Many technologies are limited by the size of the supply chain required to produce them and the scale of factory required to make the technology cost-effective.
For an economy the size of a village, you are never going to have a self-sustaining technology level much higher than a blacksmith shop. Why? Because higher technology requires higher level inputs -- precision parts, refined materials, components that are produced in high tech factories.
The economy is like a pyramid, with the highest technology outputs being the few top layers at the top. Each higher tech layer depends on larger layers below -- the different components and feedstocks and tools required in production of that technology. The overall size of the economy limits the sustainable height of the pyramid.
Currently the economic/technology pyramid size is growing, driven by growth of human population and globalization of the economy. There are also efficieny effects where higher technology decreases the labor required for the lower layers of the pyramid.
When human population peaks and the economy is fully globalized, continued growth of the economic/technology pyramid will be limited to efficiency gains.
My feeling is population will have peaked but globalization will still be ongoing 100 years from now.
It is harder to forecast the limit of efficiency gains -- when robots are smart enough to generally do any work that humans can, what will be the efficiency limits on such robots? I don't expect that to be all played out in 100 years.
The big wildcard is if we extinct ourselves or otherwise cause a huge setback. Biotech is close to the level where engineering an extinction virus is a possible by a lone individual with access to the right lab. Can we survive the technological ability of genocide viruses becoming widespread?
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/lutz_et_al_2018_d...
If Thanos is real, then we're all f*ed anyway.