
Kasparov and Thiel: Our dangerous illusion of tech progress - salar
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8adeca00-2996-11e2-a5ca-00144feabdc0.html
======
salar
Paywall circumvention:
[http://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms...](http://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F8adeca00-2996-11e2-a5ca-00144feabdc0.html%3Fftcamp%3Dpublished_links%252Frss%252Fcomment%252Ffeed%252F%252Fproduct%23axzz2BfuakLjE)

~~~
Groxx
Not working for me :/

------
mindstab
I think this article must come from a point of incredible ignorance about most
of what science has been up to. Across the board there have been incredible
advances in chemistry, physics, quantum physics (which allows us our tiny
powerful processors in things like cellphones and laptops and tablets),
commercial aerospace, normal aerospace (jet-set lifestyle was a term for rich
in the 60s because you could afford to fly, now EVERYONE flies, we just
haven't increased the speed for a bunch of well laid out elsewhere
reasons[1]). Also, we're on the verge of self driving cars. Further it
misunderstands progress in general. It seems to think progress in all fields
must be linear so big advancements in new fields of days of yore should still
be advancing at such rates today ignoring rapidly growing complexity as the
field matures. Computers, the newest field, has advanced the most recently
because it is still relatively new.

This kind of thinking is just wrong and somewhat old fashioned. Just because
we didn't get the future that star trek and pulp 60's sci-fi promised us
doesn't mean we collectively screwed up somehow. The refrain "where's my
flying car" or "where's my jetpack" is just misguided. We are living in the
future, just not one predicted. Transportation speeds stopped increasing
rapidly and went from exponential back to linear to nearly stalled, but as
mentioned they scaled from a few rich to all. And there are good reasons for
this, not cowardice etc. Meanwhile unexpectedly computation and communication
technology exploded. I can video chat with everyone I know anywhere in the
world for effectively free. I carry around a better than star trek
communicator.

This is old man thinking, stuck in one view of how the world was going to be
and ignoring how the world is. It's ignorant and offensive and misguided.
There is very little merit in this and it's ironic he's accusing the
candidates of ignoring reality.

Further reference:

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2009/11/the_myth...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2009/11/the_myth_of_the_starship.html)

<http://warren-ellis.livejournal.com/92053.html>

[http://www.doktorsleepless.com/index.php/You_Will_Never_Own_...](http://www.doktorsleepless.com/index.php/You_Will_Never_Own_a_Jetpack:_Warren_Ellis%E2%80%99_Doktor_Sleepless_by_Steven_Shaviro)

~~~
001sky
I think this 'critique' is actually not well stated. confusing for example
innovation (0,1) with scaled deployment (1 to N). Also, self driving cars are
not impressive: go to LA. LA has been a disaster since the 1930s. Part of the
problem is that what has been done to LA cannot ever be reversed, from the
perspective of environmental damage, sociology, or sheer economics. The world
has made choices with a certain element of path-dependency: yesterdays
technology holding back future progress. Its not about the Jestson's per-se;
its about being stuck with boat-anchor technology from the point of the
development of actual human interaction. Do you really want to be stuck in a
self-driving car in the 405 at rush hour? Or would you rather be walking to
work, or taking a skateboard across a perfectly smooth elevated sidewalk on a
clear night in Santa Monica (made up example, but feasible and likely more
pleasant). Making faster, more powerful cars and bigger freeways did not
eliminate traffic. Just the opposite. Self driving cars will have to overcome
the social problem, but for this you likely need actual or orthogonal
innovation. Not just more of the same, easier, less work, etc.

~~~
mindstab
Ok but that's not really what he's talking about.

I totally agree that being able to have everyone walk to work may be a better
goal than self driving cars and sadly because of past choices our best option
is probably demolishing cities (not terribly feasible). However the status quo
doesn't have to be maintained, rezoning and incremental new development can
fix much of this (look outside American city development) but now we are also
dangerously off topic.

Thiel says "the world has willingly retreated from a culture of risk and
exploration towards one of safety and regulation. We have discarded a century
of can-do ambition built on rapid advances in technology and replaced it with
a cautiousness far too satisfied with incremental improvements."

This is his standard libertarian line. More risk, less big government and
safety nets. Putting a gun to more peoples heads (metaphorically) will somehow
instantly make the world better, create more innovation, and etc etc etc.
(There's actually some pretty good data backed evidence instead of gut feeling
backed evidence that good social safety nets promote a healthier society
that’s more innovative that came up in coursera's Michigan University Model
Thinking class [<https://www.coursera.org/course/modelthinking]>)

And he also buys into that false thinking of "yesterday was better" when he
talks about "However, we bounded forward in the 1950s and 1960s thanks to a
generation of scientists who did not just believe in a better future but
invented it" and "The genuine progress in IT from the 1970s up to the 2000s
masked the relative stagnation of energy, transportation, space, materials,
agriculture and medicine."

I don't buy this narrative _at all_ for the reasons stated above. As I pointed
out above, I don't buy his perceived stagnation and lack of innovation and I
strongly don't buy into his current fears and solutions. Also, this is pretty
much general libertarian/Peter Theil philosophy very loosely redressed to try
and seem new and relevant in light of the recent election, but it's the same
old view.

In that light, some people agree with it, and some don't but there's nothing
new here in this article either.

~~~
guylhem
It's indeed an ideological reply, because for someone with a libertarian
approach (like - me), the slowdown seems to match quite well the rise of the
welfare state.

"the world has willingly retreated from a culture of risk and exploration
towards one of safety and regulation" - that says it all.

The competing ideology (let's say "progressive") cares about stuff like
equality (ex: affirmative action) or safety (look at what you did as a kid,
and what is allowed today) while most libertarians and conservative care about
efficiency and freedom.

Some equality and safety might be a god thing - but I worry much more about
efficiency and freedom - a part of which is scientific progress.

There's some basic differences here and there, but that is IMHO the core
difference.

~~~
mindstab
Part of me wants to debate this, point our correlation does not equal
causation and ask for better evidence. (yeah, I know, cheap attempt at last
word)

But ultimately we probably won't be persuading each other and at this point
the debate is useless. I've pointed out my problems with the article, and
together we've at least distilled the problem people like we will have with
the article (well stated by guylhem). I don't think much more progress can be
made :)

My critical reasoning and logic prof from Uni always said that logic is a fine
thing for enhancing discourse but if you start with different world views,
different axioms, no amount of logic can bridge that, it's just a tool for
fixing smaller disputes.

Thank's at least for more concisely summing up :)

~~~
guylhem
Thanks for your understanding.

I don't want to push any ideology or debate on this - I just see a weird trend
that other people seems to notice too, and I'd like to understand what is
happening, regardless of whose ideology is used to explain that.

------
Mvandenbergh
First of all, all respect to Peter Thiel. Everyone I know who has worked with
him has had nothing but good things to say about him.

Having said that, it is worth noting that for all his dedication to the idea
of inventing disruptive technologies that has not been his own path to
success. Paypal is a pretty boring financial transaction processor, he ran a
hedge fund for a while (yawn!), his investment in Facebook paid off big. Where
is the disruption there? Facebook is great, but it wasn't even the first
social network. A quick glance at the companies in which he personally has
invested reveals lots of good investments - in fairly typical incrementalist
companies!

I know FF has invested in SpaceX which has a legitimate claim to being the
kind of company he wants to see more of, but that isn't how he made his money
in the first place.

My problem with the substance of the article is that it takes for granted that
we can always invent wholly new things in every possible category or industry.
Let's take transport as an example. Did people stop innovating in
transportation because it wasn't profitable, because they were afraid?
Nonsense.

First of all, they didn't stop innovating. There weren't 350 kph trains in
1940 and any car made more than 30 years ago is a comically underpowered
death-trap compared to an entry level car today.

Second, there are physical laws that simply constrain the phase space of
possible solutions. Every new discovery can change those boundaries somewhat
and every now and then someone will bring new ideas together to simply invent
a brand new transport modality. However, fundamentally the densities and
coefficients of friction of solid surfaces, air, and water drive the kinds of
transport we can can come up with.

~~~
gsibble
At the time they started PayPal it was anything but a boring financial
transaction processor. It pretty much changed the face of online payments.

~~~
seanlinehan
Not to mention that Paypal was started with the intent of being a
revolutionary currency... one that wasn't bounded by any government. It failed
at its revolution but made a lot of money instead.

------
guylhem
This is unfortunately very true.

We don't have a stagnation of tech progress, we keep going forward- but the
grow rate seems to be decreasing.

Some people apparently think existing innovation (ex: mindstab comment)
suffice to disprove this.

It's not.

Just look at the 40 or 60 to see some real innovation - like antibiotics,
nuclear bombs- i.e. paradigm changing innovation in various domains.

What did we got lately? Computers, internet, cellphone, social networking -
ok, but it's a bit short, and it's mostly in one domain only.

IMHO, for any self consistent conservative, it's far more worrisome than
theoretical weather change, especially because we got used to this fast pace
of innovation and growth, and there have built the core of our societies on
such assumptions (interest rate for money, population grow for social
security, etc) - like, we are expecting technology will improve so that we get
new ways problematic (orbital mirrors, tweaking the albedo, ...) to fight
climate change if it is indeed man made and

The idea of a deceleration of progress has some merit - to me it's like
multiple warnings indicators lighting up, even if I don't know any theory to
explain it, except a reduction of the "will to live" in western societies
(Nietzsche style)

~~~
btilly
Get outside of your niche and look around. Progress is being made in lots of
fields. And the rate is not slowing.

For instance 20 years ago mapping a human genome was on the "some day" list
and sequencing a single gene was a reasonable PhD thesis. 10 years ago we
finished mapping a human genome. Now individuals can get their genome mapped
and the price of that is dropping rapidly.

10 years ago, space travel had been stagnant for decades. Now we have SpaceX.

30 years ago scientists rejected the concept of monster waves out of hand, and
ships that got destroyed by them were comedy material. (OK, so
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg> really is hilarious.) Today we
know that we need to build ships to be 5x as strong.

When I was a kid, superconductivity was an interesting phenomena that needed
liquid helium to demonstrate. Today advanced countries (ie not the USA) have
floating trains going at hundreds of miles an hour on superconductors.
Recently we discovered preliminary evidence of superconductivity at room
temperature. If that pans out, how much more will change?

Carbon nanotubes are coming in a big way. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_applications_of_carbo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_applications_of_carbon_nanotubes)
for some of what they will change.

3-d printers are real today, and the technology is improving rapidly.

I could go on, but I think that my point is made. We are making progress at a
lot of things that you're not aware of because you're only paying attention to
one area of tech. When people look back in 50 years, this will NOT be seen as
a period where technology stood still.

~~~
guylhem
I never said we are not progressing anymore - just not as fast as before, and
we were quite fast (log scale!).

The fact that authors did believe we would have colonies on the Moon or Mars,
or flying cars etc should tell you something too - we are not dreaming big
anymore, even worse : we discard past dreams.

Look at a GDP per capita curve and see the deep cut. Nothing that big ever
before - expect the great depression, where no billion dollar stimulus was
applied. Many other factors play of course, but a generally accepted key
element for long term grow per capita is technological progress.

Maybe I'm stuck in my niche but I seem to notice something - and share the
opinion of other people who seems to spot something too.

~~~
btilly
Yes, the financial crisis was real. It had a huge impact. Put that many people
out of work, and GDP/capita drops.

Doesn't change the fact that there is continuing to be a huge amount of
technological progress in a lot of different fields. Not just, as you seem to
believe, one narrow area of technology.

------
001sky
_On the campuses of Google and Apple, high-design bathrooms or espresso bars
might look very different from the average non-tech company but their balance
sheets show the same vast piles of idle cash you’ll find at Pfizer or Chevron.
If we were living in an era of accelerating technological progress, Apple
could reinvest its returns in new projects instead of fighting patent battles
over old ones while moonlighting as the world’s biggest hedge fund._

\-- Insiders with idle cash: The sound of silence speaking a thousand words.

------
brendonjohn
"FT.com articles are only available to registered users and subscribers"

....Thankyou to the google cache for providing the article.

[http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8adeca00-2996-11e2-a5ca-00144...](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8adeca00-2996-11e2-a5ca-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2BgXphivT)

------
btilly
Everyone tends to respect Kasparov because of his amazing chess prowess. He is
also a very active and involved person in the world - just look at his
activities in Russian politics.

Unfortunately when you get outside his area of expertise, he often combines
confidence and ignorance. The best example is
<http://www.revisedhistory.org/view-garry-kasparov.php> where he tries to
argue that about a thousand years of history did not happen.

His arguments are, of course, all bunk. As will be obvious to anyone who has
passing familiarity with the serious famines due to climate change in the
1300s, the impact of the British agricultural revolution on food production in
the 1700s, and the widespread use of abacuses for calculation until the
introduction of Arabic notation.

This article is superficially reasonable, but similarly bad. Major tech
advances in the recent past - many of which we'll see changing our future -
include gigantic magnetoresistance, practical genome mapping, memresisters,
continued improvements in battery technology and practical analysis of large
data sets. (Enabling technologies like facial recognition, automated
translation, and the like.)

The more you look, the more there is to be amazed at. Did you know that there
is a serious effort to create a handheld device that can take a small tissue
sample and identify any species on Earth? We've done DNA analysis on a t-rex,
and there are people trying to get funding to bring mammoths back to life.

Experiencing it day by day we take it for granted. But looking back from the
perspective of 50 years from now, the list of changes will be major.

------
guelo
It's weird for a libertarian to be praising the progress made in the 50s and
60s, a lot of which was the result of huge defense-related government
investments.

His economic history doesn't make sense either, implying that there were no
bubbles and busts before 1970.

And, as others have said, he is minimizing huge gains in a bunch of other
fields.

Weird article.

~~~
dr_doom
Was the united states really spending more on defense during the 50's and 60's
than it is now?

I think we spent over a trillion dollars this year.

~~~
mng2
As a fraction of GDP, yes.

------
iyulaev
This echoes TGS and such. OK. You've convinced me. But the article concludes
without giving any constructive suggestion, other than some vague notion that
youngsters today should really innovate.

Give me some more concrete advice. What do?

~~~
gsibble
I think that's the point. Invention and technological innovation doesn't come
with concrete advice. It requires risk and individuals pushing their visions
forward along their own path.

~~~
MaysonL
Which is why it took a government regulated monopoly to come up with Unix and
the transistor...

------
AbhijeetK
I think that they're making a very valid point. While there is a lot of
innovation and really interesting research taking place in labs, I don't know
how much of it is being translated into the marketplace. Most of the
investments being made in tech these days seem to be in web 2.0 companies
claiming to be 'Uber for ballroom dancers' or 'Instagram for nurses' or
something of the sort. Not that such investments are a bad thing, they produce
a lot of cool products.

But barring a few companies like General Fusion and SpaceX, I haven't heard
much about startups trying to tackle truly crazy and massive problems - most
companies you read about in the tech press tend to be much more 'cool idea'
than 'grand idea'. If anybody has more examples of startups trying to tackle
paradigm-changing problems, can you share them here?

------
chrito
The fundamental point around "incrementalism" makes a lot of sense.

Even government is largely incremental these days... the margin of winning the
presidency seemed so small that it probably boiled downed to a series of
micro-optimizations. If you buy that... why would a great micro-optimizer run
the country any differently?

And even with technological progress poster-child Apple... the big outstanding
question is whether Tim Cook will end up turning the company in to a micro-
optimization that converges toward it's current local maxima?

But maybe it's all just cyclical... once all the low hanging fruit is picked
over 1000 of times, the world at large will naturally be forced to be less
incremental.

------
jroid
So, does that mean singularity won't happen anytime soon ? :-(

~~~
ynniv
Nah, Moore's law is still on schedule:
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57541381-76/ibm-brings-
car...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57541381-76/ibm-brings-carbon-
nanotube-based-computers-a-step-closer/)

------
pyrotechnick
_HERE BE DRAGONS_

* Paywall

* Forced registration

* Advertisements galore

* Popups

It's laughable anyone would consider an organisation willing to produce this
abomination of a website an authority on technical progress.

I'm tremendously disappointed this had made the front page.

~~~
fragsworth
I can't even see how you're supposed to get to the article after closing one
of their popups. It just goes to their front page.

~~~
wmf
Did you read the popup saying you need to register?

