
Emerging Technologies of 2016 - adamqureshi
http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2016/08/18/the-top-ten-emerging-technologies-of-2016/
======
j_s
I'm much more interested in what HN contributors believe to be the emerging
tech trends of 2016, particularly in software development. Also if there are
any specific recommendations of websites that make these things more
discoverable in the future. (Checking GitHub trends every day 'doesn't
scale'!)

~~~
TeMPOraL
My few impressions:

\- WebAssembly and utter dominance of browsers and JavaScript as a development
platform. I don't particularly like the latter very much, but it's hard for me
to deny it is happening. People are writing desktop apps using Electron,
mobile apps are being made as embedded browsers or replaced entirely by
websites, and some folks are even making JavaScript (and node.js) work on
microcontrollers.

\- More and more languages seem to be getting REPLs, so maybe - in a few more
decades - we'll see something resembling the good development environments of
the Lisp Machines time.

\- Who knows, maybe we will finally decentralize the cloud again? I don't
fully understand the things like AWS Lambda, "compute services" and other
related buzzwords, but I know the model I'd like to see - where the cloud
provides _only_ computing power, and code can be run _on_ data as decided by
users instead of users having to give away their data to the owners of the
code. I'm not sure if this is how things turn out, but I feel like some
components of that better future are being built now.

\- We'll see an emergence of another job - of people who are something between
a developer and a devops, people who "orchestrate" all that god-awful tooling
mess of build systems, packaging systems, containers, balancers, fleets,
forward-reverse-backward distributed scheduling proxies and whatnot. It's
getting out of hand very fast.

EDIT: Cloud-to-Butt extension strikes again; I keep forgetting about it when
editing posts...

~~~
bytefactory
Regarding your third point (decentralized web), I just discovered this
recently: [https://sandstorm.io/](https://sandstorm.io/). Something like that
might start becoming more common!

~~~
splintercell
You know what I need?

A third party which manages Sandstorm like infrastructure for me. Consider it
equivalent of hiring a lawyer to represent YOU and not to somehow facilitate a
court case.

------
cheriot
It's a WSJ summary of [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/06/top-10-emerging-
techn...](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/06/top-10-emerging-
technologies-2016)

or the PDF
[http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC16_Top10_Emerging_Technologi...](http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC16_Top10_Emerging_Technologies_2016_report.pdf)

------
cheriot
If this list has anything to it, Silicon Valley will be in business for a
while.

Software is Eating the World

1\. Nanosensors and the Internet of Nanothings

2\. The Blockchain

3\. Autonomous vehicles

4\. Open AI ecosystem

Biology I Don't Understand

1\. Organs-on-chips

2\. Optogenetics

3\. Systems metabolic engineering

Other Science I Don't Understand

1\. Next-generation batteries

2\. 2-D materials

3\. Perovskite solar cells

~~~
selimthegrim
What do you want to know about the last three?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Not the OP, but I'd love to know everything about the last one.

~~~
cowardlydragon
from wiki:

Perovskite materials such as methylammonium lead halides are cheap to produce
and simple to manufacture.

Solar cell efficiencies of devices using these materials have increased from
3.8% in 2009 to 22.1% in early 2016,[3] making this the fastest-advancing
solar technology to date

\---------------

22% efficiency and cheap materials?

~~~
selimthegrim
Those lead halide cells have some robustness issues last I heard.

------
helloworld
_Horizon scanning for emerging technologies is crucial to staying abreast of
developments that can radically transform our world, enabling timely expert
analysis in preparation for these disruptors._

Who are these experts? And have they ever accurately predicted the future,
much less helped us prepare for it?

~~~
j_smart
Although the field of futurology often shows up in broader media as basically
sci-fi worldbuilding presented as prediction, actual scenario and
technological forecasting is a pretty well developed field with a long(ish)
history of serious consideration and attempts.

For instance, Theodore von Karman headed up a group that predicted drones,
ICMBs, supersonic aircraft, and a good bit more. In 1945. When the most
advanced planes in field were piston powered and prop driven.

Since then, developments like the Delphi technique and prediction markets have
helped to make forecasts even more refined. A more on the point question might
be whether forecasts are simply become self-fulfilling prophecies since
they're relied on so heavily by strategic planners in government and industry.

~~~
T-A
Then again, in 1945 the following were already known:

Drone:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb)

Jet arcraft:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jet_aircraft_of_World_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jet_aircraft_of_World_War_II)

ICBM:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel)

------
swalsh
I think we're pretty solidly at SL1 [http://enthea.org/writing/future-shock-
levels/](http://enthea.org/writing/future-shock-levels/)

Excited to see SL2 stuff being talked about :D

~~~
Jack000
I think it's missing a level (SL0.5 - linear)

all levels above 1 assumes that the compounding effect of technology will
continue into the future, but it's also possible that this growth will level
off or come in spurts as major advancements are made, and that the current
exponential growth is simply our civilization moving from one plateau to
another.

At SL3~4 some of the ideas also assume that the space of possible
technology/intelligence is a smooth continuum that extends to infinity.
However it's perfectly possible (likely, in fact) that faster-than-light
travel is simply a physical impossibility, or that there is a ceiling on
intelligence which is a very ill-defined quantity to begin with.

Bearing that in mind, here is my slightly less optimistic prognostication:

Technology will reach a plateau as the low-hanging fruit borne of the
scientific method is exhausted. Progress will still be made linearly, with
each year bringing less change than the last. Although the total number of
minds working on technological problems will increase, the mental effort
required to reach the state of the art in very narrow disciplines will
approach one human life time. New and exciting technology will be produced,
but it will often be the application of existing technology to a new field
rather than the result of fundamental research. This state continues for
several hundred years, after which linear progress has produced significant
results in human lifespan, intelligence or both via genetic engineering and
all bets are off.

------
jjnoakes
I wonder what the future of security breaches and invasion of privacy and
theft look like when there are sensors everywhere, data is flowing in all
directions, and all locks are digital.

------
TeMPOraL
I apologize, but I couldn't help myself. Does anything meaningful come out of
such lists _ever_?

I don't know much about the new solar cells or health technologies, but some
unsoliticed opinions on the things I _know_ something about:

\--

> _With the Internet of Things expected to comprise 30 billion connected
> devices by 2020, one of the most exciting areas of focus today is now on
> nanosensors capable of circulating in the human body or being embedded in
> construction materials_

Yeah, cool, but where are those sensors exactly, because I'm yet to hear of
one? I mean, it seems like we're inventing a new buzz-phrase before we're even
done with the previous one - IoT is something between a joke and a blatant
assault on the concepts of privacy and ownership performed by greedy
businesses. That it is "expected to comprise 30 billion connected devices"
means exactly nothing.

\--

> _With venture investment related to the online currency bitcoin exceeding $1
> billion in 2015 alone, the economic and social impact of blockchain’s
> potential to fundamentally change the way markets and governments work is
> only now emerging._

Again, the amount of money invested in Bitcoin doesn't really mean much except
maybe that rich people like to gamble. Looking at all the Bitcoin-related
discussions here and elsewhere, I don't see that much changed over the years -
it still seems to be a e-currency system built on top of wasting tremendous
amounts of electricity, with various promises that are supported by lots of
"cryptobabble" but somehow are never realized. I can't see why those promises
are to become real now.

\--

> _Shared advances in natural language processing and social awareness
> algorithms, coupled with an unprecedented availability of data, will soon
> allow smart digital assistants to help with a vast range of tasks, from
> keeping track of one’s finances and health to advising on wardrobe choice._

Well, I guess it depends on what one means by "AI", but really - wake me up
when Siri or Google Now becomes anything more than a glorified chatbot hooked
up to a search engine. Sure, search engines are great. Good voice recognition
is also great. But nobody seems to be working on things that would be really
_meaningful_ to people in their daily lives. Some ideas:

\- Run optimization algorithms against my life - e.g. shopping routines,
eating habits, day plans, etc.

\- Better yet, give me a tool I can _easily_ use to apply optimization
algorithms against various problems I meet daily. What is the measure of
intelligence if not its strength of optimiziation? Setting an alarm on my
phone ain't it. Not unless it's done automatically as a part of a process of
optimizing my resting patterns.

\- More to the ground, give me something that will read IRC streams or work
chats for me and auto-summarize them so that I don't have to sift through all
the cruft. Maybe it could even reply for me too when I'm busy.

Basically, a phone that talks to you in a female voice does not an AI make.

\--

In short - I find such lists to be based on imagination and justified by
looking at the market "hype" about particular technologies. Neither of these
have any grounding in reality.

~~~
robotpony
That's exactly the purpose, the list applies the wonder of the human
imagination to emerging tech. The purpose is to spark further imagination and
wonder. Inspiration has value on its own.

I've been reading lists like these for decades. Popular Science, Scientific
America, Compute, Wired, etc. These magazines all inspired me to imagine
computing problems in different ways. They encouraged me to read more about
new technologies. They are part of how I think now. I believe this to be an
incredible thing.

