Coleman McCormick

Archive of posts with tag 'Prediction'

Outcomes Don't Look Like We Predict

October 12, 2023 ā€¢ #

Just because we set an objective doesnā€™t mean weā€™ll reach it. At least not in the specific form we imagine.

When we do finally reach a destination thatā€™s descriptively similar to the objective we thought we were after (artificial intelligence, augmented reality, flight, fusion, et al), it will look wildly different in practice than we thought.

Once we achieve a breakthrough innovation, along the path of stepping stones ā€” the series of building blocks we must pass through to get us there ā€” weā€™ve made hundreds of additional observations on the journey that change what we thought we wanted.

The first aspiring aviators mimicked the flapping of a birdā€™s wings in their designs. Take a look at Da Vinciā€™s notebook illustrations and youā€™ll get a sense for where conventional wisdom was at the time on how flight might be one-day achieved.

The wings of Da Vinci's ornithopter
The wings of Da Vinci's ornithopter

But along the way, through continuous iteration and discovery of the ā€œadjacent possiblesā€, we learned that fixed wing flight was not only more attainable with the available late 19th century engineering techniques, but was also superior for manned, powered flight. A bird attains lift and propulsion through a flapping motion. But humans found a way to decouple the two, which meant we could use ever-more-powerful propulsion methods, and still rely on the same principle of aerodynamic lift.

Kevin Kelly calls these unpredictable destinations ā€œmovable futuresā€:

One of the reasons it is hard to predict what the future looks like is because much of the future is movable. The thing we are trying to forecast is changed by our attempts to make it real. Many hundreds of years ago, when creative people imagined flying machines, they imagined machines that had wings that flapped. What they imagined did not happen; the deliverable moved to an airplane with fixed wings. In the 1950s we imagined wrist-watch radios on every person in the future, and that did not happen (yet), but instead, the future moved to ā€œradiosā€ in the pocket of every person. Now we feel we donā€™t want wrist-watch radios. The future moved.

What we think we want at the beginning hasnā€™t yet been informed by all our learnings along the way.

āœ¦

Weekend Reading: Dracones, Calendars, and Science 2.0

June 6, 2020 ā€¢ #

šŸ‰ Hic Sunt Dracones

Adam Elkus with a great essay on the current moment:

ā€œIs this as bad as 1968?ā€ is an utterly meaningless question precisely for this underlying reason. People do not invoke 1968 because of the objective similarities between 2020 and 1968. They do so because we have crossed a threshold at which basic foundations of social organization we take for granted now seem up for grabs. This is an inherently subjective determination, based on the circumstances of our present much as people in 1968 similarly judged the state of their worlds to be in flux. 1968 is an arbitrary signpost on an unfamiliar road we are driving down at breakneck speeds. You can blast ā€œGimme Shelterā€ on the car stereo for the aesthetic, but itā€™s not worth much more than that.

šŸ“† Contemplating Calendars

Devon Zuegel with ideas on how to better utilize your calendar for things beyond appointments and meetings. A few ideas Iā€™d like to commit to doing, especially with using the calendar as a recall tool for memory.

šŸ”¬ Science 2.0

Robin Hanson on experts, prestige, skepticism:

Just as our distant ancestors were too gullible (factually, if not strategically) about their sources of knowledge on the physical world around them, we today are too gullible on how much we can trust the many experts on which we rely. Oh we are quite capable of skepticism about our rivals, such as rival governments and their laws and officials. Or rival professions and their experts. Or rival suppliers within our profession. But without such rivalry, we revert to gullibility, at least regarding ā€œourā€ prestigious experts who follow proper procedures.

āœ¦
āœ¦