Hacker News Reader

Comment by khaledh | Hacker News Reader

Computers were invented in the 1940s. We're only about 80 years out from that period and look where we are now: a worldwide network of computing devices from tiny watches to planet-scale clouds.

In 100 years I expect there will be a fundamental shift in how computing is done. I don't know what that will look like, but it will be nothing like what we know today.

View on HN

In 1953, people looking back at the first 50 years of powered flight imagined the wildest things to happen in the next 50. Today we have B-52 built no later than 1963 scheduled to fly well into the 2050ies. To me, the modesty of the article's predictions was a pleasant surprise after the expectations set by the headline.

Totally agree. The biggest fallacy in tech circles is confusing s-curves with exponentials

Nicely condensed, I hope I'll remember for future use. But I'd replace the "in tech circles" with "about technological development", because I don't think that people further away from tech are any less suspect. (but in the other hand they certainly don't indulge in rose-tinted extrapolation as much...)

Oh yeah, good point, maybe something like "the biggest fallacy in predicting the future is to confuse an s curve with an exponential"

It's hard to say which one we're in with computers though. Transistors + conventional programming have definitely reached the flatting out part.

However, if we're talking 100 years, it's hard to estimate what potential paradigm shifts like true AI*, quantum computing, or something that hasn't been thought of will change.

* What we're now seeing with GPT 3.5 etc. No-one can really say with high confidence whether it's the start of an AI revolution or will plateau soon.

True, but we also have planes that can almost fly themselves (for the most part), drones that are remotely controlled, stealth jets, and rockets that can reach Mars.

Historical note: remote-controlled drones are not a new thing. The first remote-controlled drone aircraft was the RP-1 (Radio Plane 1), demonstrated in 1938. Almost 15,000 Radio Plane drones were built in World War II.

Reference: https://www.historynet.com/drones-hollywood-connection/?f

My understanding is this is sort-of true. There have been continual upgrades for the entire life of the plane so you can't point to the first ever and assume it's anywhere near the same as one which flies today. (from memory. One more knowledgeable should chime in here)

There have been upgrades of various kinds, they probably don't fly with Garmins velcroed to the cockpit. Weapons load interfaces have surely seen considerable modernization, they keep adapting to the very latest munitions (e.g. B52 from 60 years ago are what they use to test fire hypersonic missile prototypes). An engine update seems to finally be signed, to a variant of a design from the mid nineties. After several decades of studies and reviewing offers, operational 2028 to 2035 [0]. Wheels do seem to turn a little slower than they used to.

What your memory probably brought up was the fact that all the 52s flying today are 52H, the final iteration following A through G with considerable changes between them. But the H is the one built 1961 through 1963, from today's perspective they are not really much younger than their mothballed/disarmed siblings. The reason I suspect that this is what you are talking about is that the same thing happened to me, I roughly knew about the A through H thing but placed the H much closer to the present and was very surprised on a recent read-up.

[0] https://www.afmc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2789821...

Widespread brain implants. Which might entail what is effectively telepathy among other weird shit that seems impossible.

I'm not confident that will be the case. But its plausible from a technical standpoint. On a far shorter timeline than 100 years.

Outside of neuralink fantasy PR, is it really possible to interface a computer with the brain like that? I feel like we don’t have the slightest clue how the brain works and then I don’t see how we could ever make electronics interface with synapses in a way that makes you see video, audio, etc.

It seems I’m not alone and Noam Chomsky feels the same. https://www.inverse.com/article/32395-elon-musk-neuralink-no...

Considering how we do limb prosthetics, we won't know how to interface a brain with a computer. We know how to make a computer compatible enough for the brain to interface with the computer. This can be the way this plays out.

Arguably, we already did that (make an interface that our brain adapts to): programming languages, keyboards, are already man-made interfaces our brain adapted to.

I can envision a system interfacing to advanced language/image models using genetic algorithms to spit out candidate outputs and using biometric readings (in the vein of an FMRI, or maybe just a polygraph) to judge how satisfied a user is with various outputs in different categories, then rapidly using the feedback to develop an output that most satisfies the user's desire. How well this could work, or if it would work in practice, seem to be the biggest questions, but I think we definitely have avenues worth exploring using existing technology. I have to say the idea of such a technology is a little disquieting if it were used the way things like polygraphs already are, and optimized for something other than the user's preferences.

EDIT: Now I can't shake the mental image of Alex from A Clockwork Orange strapped into his chair for his "treatment". And certain scenes toward the end of The Men Who Stare at Goats.

> I feel like we don’t have the slightest clue how the brain works and then I don’t see how we could ever make electronics interface with synapses in a way that makes you see video, audio, etc.

For what its worth, I did (well, started) a PhD in this and you're bang on. We don't understand the brain at all, and trying to fudge this immense knowledge gap with Machine Learning is getting us nowhere. Doesn't stop the grant money from rolling in, though.

It's a gap in understanding, and it may be a gigantic gap.

Such gaps sometimes get closed by monumental efforts, sometimes by small groups, and sometimes they take centuries.

Not telepathy: you wouldn't even know how to define it. "Sub"-vocal communication over radio is totally feasible, though.

You reckon we'll have AGI, or at least something resembling it by then?

Brain implants + near-AGI would essentially make us superhuman

Might just as well make us artificially happyfied super-vegetables, completely incapable of taking decisive action required in some unexpected crisis.

If you replace metalworking with the reward mechanism hacks Facebook et al use to optimize their success metrics, the threshold to a paperclip maximizer scenario gets considerably lower. Smartphones are bad enough, add MMI to the mix and all bets are off.

Tell a human 200 years ago that we can access any knowledge of the humanity within minutes, that we can travel at 900kph, that we can drink sea water. They'll tell you that we are indeed super-humans.

Tell an average parent today that 100 years ago the average parent raised 6 kids, and they'll tell you the people in the past must have been the superhuman ones!

Good one...

For a monthly fee of $999 no less

Or you can use the ad-supported version "for free".

Or we pay you $5/mo to use your available brain cycles to mine braincoin.

Ala Johnny Mnemonic

I already have a reasonable Adjusted Gross Income on my annual tax return. We already have an American Geological Institute. Have many Adventure Game Interpreters to choose from. Amplified Geochemical Imaging is a mature field. Hell, we even have some early contenders for proto Artificial General Intelligence if that is what you meant. But obviously we don't have Acronym Gist Inflation, and your text remains unqualified and vague.

It has been how many years since the wheel was invented?

Somehow no fundamental shifts in how rolling on the ground is done are foreseen, despite the time frame.

I don't know, i feel like going from a wheel barrow to a train (or car) was a pretty big shift.

MagLev Trains?

That's a pretty shitty comparison, comparing the concept of computers to an object.

A wheel is an engineering miracle, not an object. (Try making one yourself if you don't believe me.)

But consider that most fundamental advances in computer science, other than maybe graphics, happened by the 1970s. What we have had since have been largely incremental improvements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com