It’s not difficult to think of wide areas of technology where decades of extremely rapid progress have been followed by decades of utter stagnation. For example, transportation technologies are generally in this category. This might change soon with the advent of self-driving cars, but it’s still hard to reconcile any “law of accelerating returns” with four decades of no meaningful progress. (And in some cases even retrogression—the fastest military and passenger aircraft of all time, the Blackbird and the Concorde, were both launched around 40 years ago, and have been retired from service since. The current world record in manned aircraft speed was set in 1976!)
In fact, on the whole, it is hard for me to think of many examples of technologies where we do see anything resembling accelerating returns and exponential growth by any meaningful metrics. There are the integrated circuits, fancy thin displays, and sundry signal-processing technologies that enable fast long-range digital communication—but except for these and their direct applications, what is so much different compared to 30-40 years ago that it would be meaningful to talk about “accelerating returns”?
(And in some cases even retrogression—the fastest military and passenger aircraft of all time, the Blackbird and the Concorde, were both launched around 40 years ago, and have been retired from service since. The current world record in manned aircraft speed was set in 1976!)
I don’t disagree with your broader point, but I am not sure this is the best example. The Blackbird was a reconnoissance aircraft—something that has been replaced by the superior technology of imagery satellites. In the case of the Concorde, the plane proved uneconomical, in part because many of the major urban areas that would be natural points of call did not have room to build long enough runways to accommodate its speed. Aeronautical engineering is probably capable of building a faster passenger plane, but there would be no market for it.
For example, transportation technologies are generally in this category. This might change soon with the advent of self-driving cars, but it’s still hard to reconcile any “law of accelerating returns” with four decades of no meaningful progress.
Fatal car accidents per million miles driven,and per capita, are down precipitously. Although consumer automotive technology is not becoming faster and faster, using it is becoming safer and safer. In human terms — in terms of its ability to implement our values, which certainly include using it without dying or killing — the technology is advancing steadily.
(Of course, this construes “consumer automotive technology” broadly — including airbags, highway design, and Breathalyzers! — not just things like engine design.)
Fair enough. “No meaningful progress” is an overstatement. But so is “advancing steadily”: under any meaningful metric, 2011 cars represent much less progress over 1950s cars than the latter represented relative to the 1890s horse carriages or the early motor cars circa 1900.
And in any case, even steady advances would still be a counterexample to the supposed trend of exponential progress and accelerating returns.
I do tentatively agree with the assessment about stagnation in some fields of technology, I just think that when bringing up such criticism one should also include examples. And including such examples forces one to think in a different way about it.
It’s not difficult to think of wide areas of technology where decades of extremely rapid progress have been followed by decades of utter stagnation. For example, transportation technologies are generally in this category. This might change soon with the advent of self-driving cars, but it’s still hard to reconcile any “law of accelerating returns” with four decades of no meaningful progress. (And in some cases even retrogression—the fastest military and passenger aircraft of all time, the Blackbird and the Concorde, were both launched around 40 years ago, and have been retired from service since. The current world record in manned aircraft speed was set in 1976!)
In fact, on the whole, it is hard for me to think of many examples of technologies where we do see anything resembling accelerating returns and exponential growth by any meaningful metrics. There are the integrated circuits, fancy thin displays, and sundry signal-processing technologies that enable fast long-range digital communication—but except for these and their direct applications, what is so much different compared to 30-40 years ago that it would be meaningful to talk about “accelerating returns”?
I don’t disagree with your broader point, but I am not sure this is the best example. The Blackbird was a reconnoissance aircraft—something that has been replaced by the superior technology of imagery satellites. In the case of the Concorde, the plane proved uneconomical, in part because many of the major urban areas that would be natural points of call did not have room to build long enough runways to accommodate its speed. Aeronautical engineering is probably capable of building a faster passenger plane, but there would be no market for it.
Fatal car accidents per million miles driven, and per capita, are down precipitously. Although consumer automotive technology is not becoming faster and faster, using it is becoming safer and safer. In human terms — in terms of its ability to implement our values, which certainly include using it without dying or killing — the technology is advancing steadily.
(Of course, this construes “consumer automotive technology” broadly — including airbags, highway design, and Breathalyzers! — not just things like engine design.)
Fair enough. “No meaningful progress” is an overstatement. But so is “advancing steadily”: under any meaningful metric, 2011 cars represent much less progress over 1950s cars than the latter represented relative to the 1890s horse carriages or the early motor cars circa 1900.
And in any case, even steady advances would still be a counterexample to the supposed trend of exponential progress and accelerating returns.
I do tentatively agree with the assessment about stagnation in some fields of technology, I just think that when bringing up such criticism one should also include examples. And including such examples forces one to think in a different way about it.