1/ For the past year, we’ve been building a new research organization:
Speculative Technologies (
@spec__tech
) exists to create an abundant, wonder-filled future by unlocking powerful materials and manufacturing technologies that don’t have a home in other institutions.
I wonder if 50 years from now we're going to look back at how we've redesigned our world around computers with the same regret that people look back at how we redesigned cities around cars. 🤔
I have a unsubstantiated hunch that this is also what killed corporate research with huge positive externalities.
Over the course of several decades, companies realized how little value they could actually capture from deep research and got it off their books.
"Most people don't do interesting things, unless they're in a community where that thing is normalized"
-
@slatestarcodex
I found this extremely truthy and triggered some correlaries that I don't see talked about much:
1/ Did you know that Vannevar Bush (you know, the guy who helped enable everything from radar to the manhattan project, the NSF to memexes) wrote an autobiography?
Turns out that yes he did, it's been out of print since the 70's, and it's *excellent*
BOOK REPORT THREAD
1/ Recently finished "Where’s my Flying Car - A memoir of Futures Past" by J Storrs Hall.
It's simultaneously extremely critical of the state of atom-based technology and presents a precise and aggressively optimistic vision of possible futures.
BOOK REPORT THREAD 🧵
To tack my personal opinion to this awesome historical anecdote:
We're not setting people up to be 25-year-old Manhattan Project contributors. Instead of encouraging highschoolers to go incredibly deep on science, we tell them to be well rounded and do a million activities.
The subtlety is that both computers and cars are amazing tools!
But the trick is that at some point remaking the world in service of a tool might start to go against serving people.
~80% of the times I go to the website of an organization I've never heard of, I end up going to wikipedia to figure out *what they actually do.*
This seems like a problem.
After digging into why DARPA works, I asked the follow-up question:
How could you follow DARPA's narrow path in a world very different from the one that created it?
My answer:
I went to the International Manufacturing Technology Show (IMTS) last week.
It's a ginormous trade show devoted to CNC mills, grinders, robot arms, metrology, CAD, 3D printing etc.
Felt like a new world (especially compared to Twitter) so I thought to share what struck me
1/
Lots of people are talking about lab-grown meat.
What about lab-grown wood?
Lab-grown shells?
Nature is an existence proof that proteins are able to create incredible materials. We're getting good at proteins -- what materials could we unleash with them?
Slack (in the systems sense) seems to both lead to amazing things and flies in the face of efficiency, justification, and rationality.
Over time, we've killed slack in more and more domains in the name of efficiency.
With the spotlight on the effects of Boeing's relentless drive for measurable efficiency, I wanted to re-up this great piece:
Slack is the illegible dark matter behind a lot of good stuff in the world.
It's also the first thing to get cut.
I backed a Kickstarter for a visual encyclopedia of megastructures a while ago and it's everything I was hoping for!
It's striking how this aesthetic and ambition has taken on a connotation of "unseriousness" -- a thing for children and dreamers.
1. We should strive to live in a world where Elon Musk is unremarkable. “Oh yeah, that guy getting to Mars. He’s cool but I’m a fan of the guy building a tunnel between China and the US”
1/ Recently finished "The Genesis of Technoscientific Revolutions" by Narayanmurti and Tsao.
The book lives up to its grand name! It feels like a (fuzzy) image of the elephant that is "how research works" where everybody else is feeling a snake or a tree.
BOOK REPORT THREAD🧵
Another unsubstantiated hunch is that ambitious people are drawn to startups because it's one of the few domains with slack provided by VCs willing to make wild bets.
1/ Recently finished "Scientific Freedom: The Elixir of Civilization" by Donald Braben.
It's a sobering (but hopeful!) exploration of the stagnation in what I would call "paradigm shifting research" and what to do about it.
BOOK REPORT THREAD 🧵
One like = one opinion (+reason) about Elon Musk.
Took the
@vgr
bait to do a one-opinion-per-like personal challenge. Live-fire stress test of your brainstorming capacity
5. Elon’s popularity* is a signal of latent desire for ambitious projects in the physical world.
People don’t see how they can contribute so they root for him. The logical conclusion is that we need more outlets for that enthusiasm.
*even detractors say “sweet, but won’t work”
Some rough power consumption numbers:
Human: 100 W
House: 1 kW , peak 10 kW
Car: 50 kW, peak 200 kW
Small city: 20 MW
MIT Campus: 18 MW
I found it especially surprising that a car uses roughly an order of magnitude more power than a house!
Trying out a potentially disagreeable assertion:
It’s almost impossible to simultaneously focus on solving a need and building a new technology because in the early days of a technology there are almost always better ways to address that need.
5/ The coupling between energy+power and technological paradigm shifts is surprisingly tight.
There are a massive number of things where the key technical constraint is cheaper and denser energy that we've just stopped thinking about.
It was delightfully object level. Nobody talking about transforming human interaction or web3 enabled AI for industry 4.0* — they’re like “this tool cuts metal really well — look at it cutting metal. Here is a piece it just made”
*Ok, almost nobody: there were some startups
3/
You read histories about these people and (most) weren't varsity-athlete, club-starting, straight-A influencers.
They were obsessed with taking things apart, putting them together, and how stuff worked and spent all their time on that.
That doesn't get you into good schools.
6/ Hall introduces the concept of the "Machiavelli Effect."
It's effectively the known phenomenon of entrenched interests - ties it into Kuhnsian paradigm shifts, and argues that the effect has become much stronger over time.
2/ The core of the book is the question "Why didn't the future that people expected in the 50's come to pass and how could we get back on track?"
This question is not new, but Hall's approach is the most precise and brutal treatment I've seen.
@arram
My hunch is that the differently structured property control also leads to things like underpasses being filled with cool little bars instead of needles and garbage.
8. People forget that Elon was basically treated like a crackpot for *years* before SpaceX successfully launched.
The question it raises is “how many projects have died because their crackpot leaders weren’t well-connected decamillionaires?”
1/ It's always surprised me how many people who are interested in technology are unfamiliar with Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs.)
It's a great framework for communicating a technology's maturity and it's time for them to be used outside of aerospace.
A thing I'd love to see:
A time-lapse video of a construction site that is annotated with how much everything we're seeing costs and comments like:
"These two machines aren't being used because ..."
"Nothing is happening for three days because they're waiting on..."
Is academia an outdated and irredeemably broken system or is it a critical piece of modern civilization?
I want to make a subtle (gasp!) argument that it's both:
Academia is broken, but has unique gems at its core. The way to fix it is to focus on those and unbundle the rest.
Realized that the soul-sucking nature of bureaucracies is that it's always your fault, never the system's or a bureaucrat's.
For not filling out the form correctly, for waiting in the wrong place, for not satisfying all of the potentially contradictory requirements.
Freeman Dyson died today.
A thread because
1. Many people who haven't heard of him who should!
2. He's a gestalt person, so many people only know a few of the pieces - physicist, theoretician, builder, science fiction inspiration, literary critic, institution defier ...
4/ A core theme of the book is the coupling between how much energy we can harness, atom-based technology, and how we deviated from an exponentially increasing curve in energy use in the 1970's.
29/ Carl Sagan ftw. We need to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true. When there is a paper for everything, as is now the case, it allows people to find peer reviewed evidence for any opinion.
@slatestarcodex
As more community interaction moves online, things that are more transmissible through the internet become normalized more easily than those that aren't.
eg. Essays, tweets, short-form videos
1. Really impressive that CRISPR went from discovery to helping people in ~20 years!
2. That 20 years is a pretty characteristic timescale for deep research to become products (let alone create huge companies)
Not entirely serious thought:
What if the way that large language models actually accelerate the economy is by enabling good enough communication with animals that they become much more productive?
Who needs robots when you can negotiate with birds and monkeys
Parrots are clearly intelligent enough to understand video UIs
They also apparently prefer watching videos of other parrots 🤔
This implies an opportunity for a "parrot streaming" platform. Looking for a team who is as excited about this opportunity as Iam
What would you want to ask someone who:
- Worked at Bell Labs during its golden age
- Ran a national laboratory
- Started the engineering school at Harvard
?
(Interviewing Venkatesh Narayanamurti later today)
@slatestarcodex
But it's much harder to transmit doing cool physical things, and so it's harder for them to become normalized and harder to get into community where they are normalized.
(I'm guilty of this myself! See the fact that I'm doing the normalized weird thing of writing a tweet thread
Bring back patronage as a prestigious thing!
There are a few people who genuinely want to produce public goods and can do so effectively with two people's worth of salary (themselves + an assistant).
Much more effective than university buildings! Let's make it as prestigious
Some philanthropist should fund Dwarkesh; he provides a great public service.
I'm surprised that's not already the case. Potentially many philanthropists underestimate the value of producing and disseminating high-quality ideas.
Realization: There are secretly three kinds of experts:
1. Experts with Power
2. Experts with Platform
3. Experts with Proficiency
Ideally “Experts” are 1+2+3 but that’s often not the case. Hence arguments over “should we listen to experts?”
2/ Before you even start, it has one of the best forwards I've ever read* and like much of the book, doesn't feel dated at all.
"I have drawn on the wealth of the vocabulary of the youth of our times. Theirs is a pungent stock of words, and action marks most of them"
A distinction I'm starting to believe is secretly huge:
People who have done 'physics-bound' work and those who haven't.
(contra, 'technical' vs. 'non-technical', specific fields, etc.)
@Ben_Reinhardt
As a wise person once wrote, “A sober accounting of all the challenges an idea is going to face in deployment will very often lead to people not trying it.”
I have a weirdly strong conviction that people consistently overestimate what can be achieved in five years but we underestimate what can be achieved in 20.
Is this a real phenomena? Is there any evidence behind it?
@slatestarcodex
Are these the things that we want to see normalized? I'm not so sure.
On the margin, I don't think we need more smart ambitious online people devoting themselves to writing or coding.
(This is one way that I disagree with a lot of people I respect!)
More on disconnect between impressive/imporant and market value:
Some of the top machine tools companies -- these are the folks that enable basically the entire modern manufacturing stack -- have market caps of ~$400M.
5/
9/ So many good examples of Clarke's Law
"When a elder preeminent scientist says that something is impossible, he’s probably wrong. When a elder preeminent scientist says something might be possible, he’s probably right."
How to do hard stuff:
write down a 1 page doc with your key assumptions, the hypothesis/goal you want to test, and your plan to do it
now read it with a maximally critical eye…does it make sense? are there gaps? iterate until you can’t find any
now go execute like crazy
It's still mind-blowing what a big difference having a serious context-of-use makes for learning something new (tool, body of knowledge, etc.)
Sitting down and saying "I'm going to learn this now" vs. "I NEED to learn this for important thing X"
There's such a disconnect between how impressive/important a tool is and its market value.
Companies that are doing crazy things like building-size gantries that can both deposit material and mill it out with five-axis heads are only doing yearly revenues of $50M
4/
3. Elon set a precedent of “you need to go make a bunch of money in software before you can work on sweet sci fi shit”
My hunch is that this is net negative because of the number of people who go for the first part and get stuck.
@slatestarcodex
There's also a "medium is the message" thing going on as well:
The vast majority of the ways we share on the internet boil down to entertainment. Even serious things that are meant to start real discussions succeed or fail based on their entertainment value.
There's a fuzzy, unnamed, but obscenely important skill that keeps coming up when you dig into successful technology managers across worlds/disciplines:
Roughly, it's the ability to know how hard something is - Whether someone is slow because they're slacking or it's impossible
Dumb question: has anybody done serious, detailed work on the mechanisms that drive technological s-curves?
They're this empirical phenomenon that most people seem to just accept as fact, but what determines the parameters? Are there mechanisms creating a true sigmoid?
The trend continues in college -- everybody is grade obsessed and doing a million activities so that by the time they graduate, many people barely know enough to even start the journey of not being useless in a research lab.
@matthewclifford
41. Elon's consistent playfulness is underrated.
See: twitter, tesla in space stunt, cameos in shows/movies, etc.
Playfulness in general is underrated - I suspect it's a hard-to-fake indicator of thinking for yourself. Adults, esp in public, are expected to have decorum.
I want to build a world where people don’t need to be Elon-level to create and scale awesome hardware.
It’s not a law of physics that it needs to be as hard as it is!
Hardware is hard.
That’s why Elon is by far the greatest founder of all time.
Remember — countless startups die just while trying to put stationary beige boxes on desktops. Very smart people get crushed by supply chain disruptions, or China tariffs, or lockdowns, or shipping
@vgr
I suspect what people actually want is to live in a medium-big city that has a few good third spaces where you can consistently run into people and good transportation so the overhead to visit is not too high.
I want to double down on this one!
My mental update is that drastically cheaper energy production might not just be the key to an abundant, wonderful future, but an existential imperative as well.
More available energy is what keeps us out of fragility-inducing zero sum games
From the Archives: The great slowdown began when we started rationing energy. Restarting progress means getting energy that is so abundant that it’s almost free.
@Ben_Reinhardt
writes:
The vast majority of Earth is uninhabitable without technology.
It's easy to forget that clothes, fire, and hand-axes needed to be invented before we could expand from Africa.
Space is harder, but no different.
The question is: what are the new fire and hand axes?
“We don’t just need a planet roughly the same size and temperature as Earth; we need a planet that spent billions of years evolving with us. We depend completely on the billions of organisms that make up Earth’s biosphere. Without them, we cannot survive.”
17. Elon's precise communication style completely makes you forget that he's not actually the best orator.
Most people do the opposite - they use superb oratory to obscure imprecise thought.
@Ben_Reinhardt
The meta corollary is that R&D pays if you have a monopoly. IIRC Bell Labs paid for itself by reducing the amount of lead AT&T had to use.
Every year I do a one-year planning process that looks back at a five year plan that I first created in 2019.
This is the first year I needed to go back and evaluate myself on my five-year goals - it's kind of shocking how well I managed to do on them!
57. Elon's 'project generation function' looks like*:
1) Find old idea that had a fundamental constraint that has been relaxed by new technology
2) Figure out what can be done by 10-20 people with ~$10-50m in 1-3 years
3) Do it
*From the outside, obviously