= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Five-minute rationality techniques - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (231)
If the standard is nukes and radar, then only things which leave the other side saying "how is that even possible?" or "that came out of nowhere" counts as surprising.
Robot drones are not surprising. I'm pretty sure invisibility tech would not be surprising. Anti-gravity would be surprising.
Decreasing frequency of surprising technology advancements are caused by faster and more frequent information of the general public about scientific advancements.
If the rate of news consumes grows faster than the rate of innovations produced, the perceived magnitude of innovation per news will go down.
How many people, even as smart as us, correctly predicted the sorts of wonder weapons that the intense research pressures that a world war would create in say, 1935? If we're talking about surprising sorts of weapons, I expect not to have been exposed to them, or if I have, to have rejected them out of hand.
It is difficult for me to conceive of military technology that is:
a) potentially surprising
b) powerful enough to make a big difference
c) near-future
"Rods from God" might count, if they exist, but they're not surprising. The best example I can think of is strong memetic warfare, but I'm not confident that will be developed in the near future (or indeed ever).