Comments on: The slowing of technological progress

By: tychoish

tychoish — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:16:38 +0000

Might there also be an element of “what we need from [information] technology has not grown apace with that technology?”

The biggest barriers to the adoption of new technologies isn’t their existing (we have growing and ever expanding computing capacities) but rather for most of us a number of pragmatic bottlenecks: network speeds and connectivity for most of us, the speed and efficacy of HTTP as the “protocol of the future,” information organization and so forth. We even buy laptops that are underpowered, because they do everything we need… Technology continues to develop, we just having some catching up to do with regards to our utilization of that technology.

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:31:28 +0000

All I have to say about this is that when molecular manufacturing and fully-roboticised construction methods become widespread, Nordmann and Krugman are going to look pretty foolish.

By: Tom James

Tom James — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:16:27 +0000

Good points all.

On reflection I broadly disagree with Nordmann and Krugman’s arguments.

ICT is still a big and ongoing technological revolution, and biotechnology is likely to have a huge, society-altering impact over the next couple of decades.

By: Chad

Chad — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:30:30 +0000

I don’t buy that tech progress is slowing at all. The author’s contention that previous inventions were essentially brand new is incorrect. Those inventions had a precursor just like cell phones had rotary phones as a precursor. Let’s take phones as an example.

Pointing/grunting was the precursor to talking, which was the precursor to writing, which were the precursor to messages, which was the precursor to mail, mail was the precursor to the telegraph, which was the precursor to the phone (old 2 handed operator connected phones), which was the precursor to the rotary phone, which was the precursor to the cordless phone, which was the precursor to the cell phone, which is the precursor to the smartphone, which is probably the precursor to your entire computer in your pocket, etc.

None of these were original or completely new inventions. They were all built off of the desire to communicate better. The assumption that the current smartphone is related to Alexander Graham Bell’s phone in any meaningful way is ridiculous. Could Bell’s phone tell him where he was at? What restaurants were near? Call anyone in the entire world from almost anywhere in the world? Look up the periodic table? Mail a message with a photo attached instantly? I could go on and on.

By: Rolf

Rolf — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:14:07 +0000

I believe it is useful to challenge ideas and hypothesis, and that is valid also for the singularity. The statement that progress of technology is slowing down I do however not find very justified. I am not so sure here into what class of changes Paul Krugman puts the internet and cell phones. I think it possible to make a case for them really having influenced and still influencing the world and they came definitely after last centuries sixties.

I would be surprised if our advances in genetics, stem cells and system biology would not bring us significant changes in the next or latest the following decade. The visions in those technologies are too plausible and are already tested in laboratories.

It is may still be possible to make a case that for AI to really work we are missing just too many technologies which are currently not even on real road maps not to speak that they would be working in laboratories. I refer to computerpower which is needed beyond what current technologies promise and a to understanding of general intelligence, which also still has a long way to go.