[iterance]

Specific fields may not advance for decades at a time, but we are hardly in a scientific drought. There have been dramatic advances in countless fields over the last 20 years alone and there is no good reason to expect such advances to abruptly cease. Frankly this is far too pessimistic.

[threethirtytwo]

I don't understand what is wrong with pessimism. That's not a valid critique. If someone is pessimistic but his description of the world matches REALITY, then there's nothing wrong with his view point.

Either way this is also opinion based.

There hasn't been a revolutionary change in technology in the last 20 years. I don't consider smart phones to be revolutionary. I consider going to the moon revolutionary and catching a rocket sort of revolutionary.

Actually I take that back I predict mars as a possible break through along with LLMs, but we got lucky with musk.

[andrewflnr]

You imply your view "matches REALITY", then fall back to "Either way this is also opinion based." Nicely played. But the actual reality is that scientific discovery is proceeding at least as fast as it ever has. These things take time. 20 years is a laughably short time in which to declare defeat, even ignoring the fact that genetic and other biological tech has advanced leaps and bounds in that time. There's important work happening in solid state physics and materials science. JWST is overturning old theories and spawning new ones in cosmology. There's every reality-based reason to believe there will be plenty of big changes in science in the next 20 years or so.

[tehjoker]

genetic technology and computing technology have been the biggest drivers for a while. i do think it is remarkable to video call another continent. communication technology is disruptive and revolutionary though it looks like chaos. ai is interesting too if it lives up to the hype even slightly.

catching a rocket is very impressive, but its just a lower cost method for earth orbit. it does unlock megaconstellations tho

[threethirtytwo]

Yeah none of those are step function changes. Video calling another continent is like a tiny step from TV. Yeah I receive video wirelessly on my tv not that amazed when I can stretch the distance further with a call that has video. Big deal.

AI is the step function change. The irony is that it became so pervasive and intertwined with slop people like you forget that what it does now (write all code) was unheard of just a couple years ago. ai surpassed the hype, now it’s popular to talk shit about it.

[incr_me]

A step in which function are you talking about, exactly?

[threethirtytwo]

If you want it stated precisely, the function is human cognitive labor per unit time and cost.

For decades, progress mostly shifted physical constraints or communication bandwidth. Faster chips, better networks, cheaper storage. Those move slopes, not discontinuities. Humans still had to think, reason, design, write, debug. The bottleneck stayed human cognition.

LLMs changed that. Not marginally. Qualitatively.

The input to the function used to be “a human with training.” The output was plans, code, explanations, synthesis. Now the same class of output can be produced on demand, at scale, by a machine, with latency measured in seconds and cost approaching zero. That is a step change in effective cognitive throughput.

This is why “video calling another continent” feels incremental. It reduces friction in moving information between humans. AI reduces or removes the human from parts of the loop entirely.

You can argue about ceilings, reliability, or long term limits. Fine. But the step already happened. Tasks that were categorically human two years ago are now automatable enough to be economically and practically useful.

That is the function. And it jumped.

[iterance]

My critique is not due to pessimism, it is due to afactuality. Breakthroughs in science are plenty in the modern era and there is no reason to expect them to slow or halt.

However, from your later comments, it sounds as though you feel the only operating definition of a "breakthrough" is a change inducing a rapid rise in labor extraction / conventional productivity. I could not disagree more strongly with this opinion, as I find this definition utterly defies intuition. It rejects many, if not most, changes in scientific understanding that do not directly induce a discontinuty in labor extraction. But admittedly if one restricts the definition of a breakthrough in this way, then, well, you're probably about right. (Though I don't see what Mars has to do with labor extraction.)

[threethirtytwo]

That’s only one dimension. The step function is multidimensional. My critique is more about the Euclidean distance between the initial point and the end point.

To which AI is the only technology that has enough distance to be classified as a “breakthrough”.

[layer8]

> If someone is pessimistic but his description of the world matches REALITY, then there's nothing wrong with his view point.

A description that matches reality is realist, not pessimist.

[threethirtytwo]

Technically this is true. Practically speaking most realists are perceived to be pessimists. There are tons of scientific studies to back this up as well. People who are judged to be pessimistic experimentally have more accurate perceptions of the real world.

This means that most people who you would term as "realists" are likely optimists and not realists at all.