[temporal828]

> I think the tricky part with innovation, is almost everything innovative looks like a bad idea to almost everyone.

No. No. The steam engine, modern refrigeration and open heart surgery all probably had some naysayers but I don't think they looked like bad ideas to almost everyone. A lot of what qualifies as innovative from your tech community really just might be crap.

From the beginning the complaint with crypto and blockchain is that it didn't fix any problems other than maybe assisting as a tool in laundering/illegal transactions, and it wastes energy to boot. I don't see how the naysayers were wrong.

The metaverse idea didn't even get to the point of hyping a purpose. Nobody even bothered to explain what useful human need or want it fulfilled (beyond what has already been fulfilled for years in gaming).

> But comparing to current state of AI, is sort of comparing to a different stage, where there is the beginning of an early majority

Early majority? That is a bold affirmation.

I think these large language models are pretty neat. I also lived through the first AI winters. I would say the hype at this moment isn't even as great as it was then (especially in the 80s). It is a bit tough to explain for those that weren't there - but numerous knowledgable and intelligent people were convinced that the AI singularity was just moments away.

[drstewart]

> but I don't think they looked like bad ideas to almost everyone. A lot of what qualifies as innovative from your tech community really just might be crap.

Cool. How about brain surgery? Clarification: how about brain lobotomies?

Without the benefit of hindsight, can you explain how open heart surgery is "clearly" good and innovative while the later is harmful. I mean, everyone knows it's a good idea: it even won a Nobel Prize.

The fact is, everyone only obviously knows an idea was crap or obvious in hindsight.

[temporal828]

> Cool. How about brain surgery? Clarification: how about brain lobotomies?

Many of the indications for open heart surgery are no longer valid or standard of care today, replaced with either vascular access or medical management... and brain surgery is a more fair comparison then a specific procedure (open heart surgery is not a single procedure either), for which plenty of lives have been improved.

Which by the way, lobotomies (temporal lobectomies, but a rose by any other name) are still an accepted treatment for epilepsy. Sidebar: Frontal lobotomies were not without controversy over their well known effects even when they were contemporary.

Neither is "clearly" good nor harmful. I never sought to engage in this black and white thinking.

And to my original point it is completely obvious to me and many in my field why it is beneficial that we should be researching alternative treatments to epilepsy other than lobectomies (which doesn't feel like the final word on epilepsy, as helpful as they have been for some), and this goes for a whole host of neurological and psychiatric treatments in general. Unfortunately the technology hasn't gotten us there yet - that doesn't mean it isn't obvious to me why work in these areas would be net beneficial. And some of those ideas are not going to pan out in the long run, no shit. This is the limitations of technological progress, not some issue of vision.

I don't think the metaverse is comparable as no one has ever explained to me how, let alone Meta, how it is not Second Life with more bells and whistles.

> The fact is, everyone only obviously knows an idea was crap or obvious in hindsight.

Well I have plenty of hindsight for all that shit.

[_puk]

Plenty of truly innovative inventions aren't initially universally loved, take automobiles for example[0].

0: https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/01/get-horse-americ...

[midland_trucker]

I'm not sure I can get on board with the sentiment of your first point. Anaesthesia as another example took more than a century to get right, had some huge failures and wasn't taken seriously. It surely earns the label of innovative but just happened on a much larger timescale.

[kevin_nisbet]

As I recall, refrigeration also went through multiple disruption cycles, or at least how someone got ice. As I recall but could be mistaken, almost no company survived from one cycle to the next.

The first cycle was ice huts, basically insulated bunkers where you could get ice through the summer that was collected in winter. This industry got totally replaced by the first of commercial refrigeration, that could generate and store ice from water. Which got disrupted and replaced against, with home refrigeration, someone can make ice at home, or get ice from a bigger version at a store.

The point I was trying to make, perhaps badly worded, was that these disruptions weren't obvious ideas by those in the industry. Otherwise they would have embraced the change technology allowed and rode into the new markets.

We're looking in hindsight, and going it's obvious it's a good idea, because we all have a fridge and can make ice at home. But at the time, those who owned the entire industry, couldn't see it.

[marcosdumay]

Can you tell me why anybody would ever want to take anaesthesia?

Ok, now, can you explain me why anybody would ever want to go in the Metaverse? (In a way that doesn't sound like an indie game or some chatroom created by a small team?)

[throwingrocks]

> No. No.

Saying “no” multiple times as if a statement is so absurdly wrong is such a meme at this point and another interesting difference between face to face and online interactions. I can’t imagine having a discussion with friends and someone throwing a bunch of “no”s out.

[temporal828]

Sort of goes with the territory with proclamations including words like "everything" and "everyone". "almost" feels like meaningless filler.

[EricDeb]

Crypto can facilitate truly decentralized money, and although that hasn't truly happened yet, I would argue that is a feature. Does society want that and would government allow it? I don't know

[ako]

What is the benefit of decentralized money, other than it makes crime easier?

[JohnFen]

I haven't yet heard a solid general case for why decentralized currency would be an improvement over what we have now. It strikes me as a solution in search of a problem.

[Loughla]

I think until the reality of an actual, true, cashless society happens, Joe Averageconsumer isn't going to be interested in decentralized money.

When and if that happens is anyone's guess, though.

[temporal828]

Gold has been around a lot longer.