Ask HN: Predictions on what will be the most surprising technology in 10 years?
I often read articles talking about the next big thing in the short term (2-4 years), but thinking about the Bill Gates 2-year-10-year quote* has me wondering about 10 years from now:
Will the most surprising thing be an expansion of an already rising technology? (AI, blockchain, biotech, nanotech, AR,...)
Or will it be something most people have never heard of yet? Thoughts/ predictions?
* "We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten."
69 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 147 ms ] threadThe powerful governments in the world won't let crypto be means for money laundering, tax evasion, moving lots of money across country boundaries secretly, undisclosed assets, inheritance and gifts without taxes, etc.
It may be that the important, remaining, applications will be for cases of contracts, secure communications, etc.
We know a lot about this system because it got a lot stronger trying to stop the money flows for terrorism, drugs, and tax evasion.
Well, for the "regulations", one can be that the system will not exchange with crypto and will not work with people who do. There are already, call it reviews, of any relatively large transactions. If something smells like drug money, terrorism, large scale tax evasion, etc., then law enforcement can get involved, crash into a house or office a 3 AM, grab all the papers and computers, grab phone tap data, grab Internet traffic data, etc. and put together a case of violation of crypto laws and regulations.
There's a fundamental point here: Sure, on a small scale, the regulations are tough to enforce, e.g., cost more to enforce than get from the enforcement. BUT the fundamental point is, for any illegal activity to make or spend much money, a LOT of people need to know about it and, then, sure, law enforcement also knows about it and can take action.
Take ICOs, for example. If ICOs continue on their current path - selling tokens to U.S. citizens that pass the Howey Test [1] - the feds will crack down on the largest and most flagrant violators faster than you can say "Ron Paul 2020"
And, it doesn't matter that these ICOs ban U.S. IP addresses from participating, either. From what I've read, the burden is on those selling the security to verify who they're selling it to.
[1] http://consumer.findlaw.com/securities-law/what-is-the-howey...
AR a really close second, but I think people will be a little bit more ready for it given prevalence in sci-fi and experience of rapid computer & graphics progress in our lifetime. So it's easier to "expect" a world of Pokemon Go on steroids in your AR glasses than it is, say, one where a boutique offshore firm is offering to give your baby the ability to see into the infrared spectrum or something.
Also, it seems about time for another psychedelic revival / breakthrough, so don't count out research on psychoactive plants and compounds (if that counts as tech per your metric).
10 years ago in 2007 I would have been surprised if we had a car that could drive itself, or a way to edit fairly specific genes.
Is that really a thing though? I keep hearing about it, articles saying that the first human to reach 300 years of age is already born etc. But is all this true? Of all things mentioned so far (AI, VR, AR, fusion power..), this is the one I have the hardest time imagining. Going from ~90 to 300 in 10 years is a huge leap compared to even the ~40 to 90 years leap of 200 years ago and today.
Do you have some trustworthy reading material on the subject?
That said, the reasoning on aging/health goes like this:
When those become; Then we would be in a position to tell our cells to do what ever we want. Fight cancer, sure program a t-cell that can identify it and kill it. Cure a cold? sequence the rhino virus and flood the immune system to target all cells with that signature for death. Auto-immune disease? Turn off the triggers that are generating the immune response. Etc, etc.We cannot do all these things today but we're working on being able to. Just as we cannot maintain a stable fusion reaction with net energy output but we're working on it.
Unfortunately, from my experience, the turnaround from finding an innovative new material to actually using it in real products is absurdly long.
Yeah, we're going to see continued growth in developing nations, but those rates will slow as well as those nations... develop.
A second guess, or a guess for second place, would be artificial general intelligence (AGI) if and only if someone or some team or project gets going on that problem and has some good, basic, enabling ideas.
I have some ideas, but since they really are just architectural or heuristic and not mathematical and not in code I can make only wild guesses for how good the ideas are.
A third guess, or a guess for third place, is my startup and its crucial core enabling technology, i.e., some original applied math I derived based on some advanced pure/applied math prerequisites. Why? In broad terms the core technology of the startup makes some powerful progress on meaning. Is this progress full AGI? Nope. Does the progress fully solve the problem of meaning? Nope. To repeat, IMHO the progress is "powerful".
Is the technology widely applicable? The range of applications should be somewhat wider than the application of my startup, e.g., as some core technology in some infrastructure for some more applications, but for now my original applied math is proprietary and in my startup is locked up and invisible in my server farm.
Why third in this list? Because it doesn't deserve first or second, but, if people like the results of my applied math and what I've programmed, then my startup can well become a big thing, big enough to be third on this list in a few years.
Gee, today I'm wrestling with Microsoft's NTBACKUP. So, today it's grunt work!
The problem is the lack of understanding and ability to engineer non-trivial things. (Most GMOs are just Glyphosate resistant or have the BT gene).
I guess we will deepen our understanding but still not be able to change big things for the next decades
Then applications to agriculture, medicine, etc. might come along in a nice stream.
Still, of course, it stands to be a very long line of work to figure out much about how DNA causes a human actually to "work".
I can't find the source, but I heard on a manager tools podcast that ~50 years ago they surveyed professionals about the future of flight. There was a ton of predictions about crazy concepts, but the winner was "bigger planes going more places"
This is also kind of a fun read: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Incorrect_predictions
It would also grant us the ability to much more effectively monitor our mental state. I bet it could be extremely helpful in combating anxiety and promoting mindfulness.
Fundamentally new tech takes 20-30 years to come to market - especially if it really does change things (government regulatory regimes, infrastructure, how we live).
Now Moore's Law isn't giving us shallow victories any more, there is opportunity for deeper changes, that properly absorb and apply its past advances.
Right now, we are undergoing a re-orientation of our political systems, in the sense of how democracy operates without a traditional press; the continuing march of multi-nationals being more powerful than sovereign states; the hyper-concentration of wealth (due to the means of production no longer being land, nor labour, but technology). Social systems are a kind of "technology".
The central question of this technological change will be: why do the hyper-wealthy need people?
The most surprising technology will be new mathematics - not TB machine proofs, but quite simple and basic ones, akin to the positional number system, algebra, calculus. They will analyse complex systems, like Navier-Stokes fluid dynamics; the operation of deep learning networks; internet and traffic congestion; and cortical organization. They won't give magical results, but they will offer a new point of view, that some will experience as magical.
This is what concerns me. They already apply their wealth and organizations to treating the general public as a farm they cultivate. They shape the educational, tax, media, and legal structure in their favor quite successfully today. With the technological advancements in media development and their hold over education policy, tomorrow has a terrifying forecast unless some educational miracle of critical thought occurs.
We will see gradual incremental improvement in specialised AIs for things like voice, face and character recognition. We will see an increased usage of AI and AI based technologies to improve efficiency and assist the humans in decision making. But it will not put nearly as many people out of jobs as some people suggest.
I agree the effects on number of jobs will be smaller than people are predicting. It won't be mass unemployment.
On the other hand, people need to realize how sensitive the job market really is. Typical unemployment in the US is 4-5% in the last 10 years. If 1% of the workforce is put out of work by new technology, something I feel is very likely, that's a 20% increase in unemployment. If it gets much larger, even maybe 8-9%, there could absolutely be mass riots and outrage.
The point is, job markets are like marriage/dating markets. They aren't smooth, they're something almost everyone wants, so even tiny little changes (like NYC's surplus of women) have dramatic, nonlinear effects. I don't think people appreciate what a "butterfly effect" this will have if, say, 10-20% of truckers (the most popular occupation in many states) are put out of work. That's an instant, large-scale political event.
EDIT Source: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/unemployment-rate-and-u-6-...
The part that annoys me is this backdrop of "machines are going to be doing everything and no one is going to have anything to do".
When in reality it's going to be an assistant next to the existing people, increasing efficiency. Like farming tools for a farmer, or auto-pilot for a pilot, or robo-equipment for a surgeon.
I often hear from non-programmers and non-technical people who somehow seem convinced that AI is some kind of dark magic that is going to kick in at some point and everything is going to be magically solved by it.
But 10 years time? We could be seeing the beginning of the end of TVs, smartphones, cinema, social media, etc. as we know it today. VR arcade warehouses popping up in many places. Perhaps even starting to impact the layouts of newly architected houses to have less walls, focus more on wide one-story dwellings (but stacked on top of each other) and more open space to roam wide in virtual reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_4.0
Are you working in this field?
There were MP3 players before the iPod, but they weren't taking off quite yet. Then Jobs came, and the iPod changed the music market. And then changed the smartphone market. Google Glass was a good first mass market prototype, Microsoft seems to be going in the right direction with Hololens, but we all know it's not quite there yet. Whoever manages to figure out what the magic combination is for an AR headset that gets massive adoption, will usher in the next UI/portable computing revolution.