Good comments. Techno-realism is the only way, as someone with lots of engineering experience in electric power and aerospace, I can say with confidence there is no other successful approach. You can be forward thinking without falling prey to magical thinking.
I think engineers are natural Techno-realists. They are always having to deal with the "great ideas" of managers.
As a non-engineer who has worked with engineers my entire career, the challenge is to get them to see beyond the immediate technical barriers.
I have learned that when an engineer says "It cannot be done", they actually mean "I cannot yet think of a solution."
The good ones will see it as a challenge and let the idea stew in their mind. They later come back with "You know, I think we might actually be able to make your idea work. We just need to...
Despite this, I find engineers much easier to deal with than "I have a great idea" managers and execs who know nothing about the technical problems with their idea.
And the media is much worse. They just want to get ratings.
All good points. The problem of techno-optimists is probably perennial, but I feel it has gotten worse since the 1990s. I have been in the energy space since the late 1970s and the renewable energy space has been filled with techno-optimists for many decades. But its worse now, in the age of the supposed ‘energy transition’ where everyone and their dog is fucking (excuse my language) ‘energy expert’. The field is rife with magical thinking. As you say, some engineers are overly procedural and not inventors, and hence they may well NOT be able to advance things via creativity, but almost all serious technical innovations are made by people who are both technically strong, realistic, and creative. You can be a dreamer, and not believe in magic. The Wright Bros and Werner Von Braun are two obvious aerospace examples.
A lot of people dislike technological progress because they don't trust their ability to adapt as fast and efficiently as their peers,even at a subconscious level.
My grandfather was very happy with 1950s technology. He would rather "make due" rather than try new technology. It is not terrible, but I am glad that not all people are like that.
Psychologists call it "Openness" (or actually the opposite)
"• It generally takes decades for a new technology:
• ...
• For all the secondary effects to ripple through the rest of the economy."
For myself, I might resist changes that don't seem to add much value compared to the time and effort I have already spent learning some new capability previously. Having a 3rd or 4th way to do the same thing I can do now is usually not very appealing. For example, when Apple came out with the mouse driven cursor, I initially resisted with an attitude of "just learn the command line prompts and you will be ok", but after a little exposure I really clicked with the mind/eye/hand coordination aspects of using a mouse. But when that core capability was transferred to thumb pads, I never liked that, as "too confining" for some reason - maybe because it required multiple strokes to really move the cursor to my desired location (or maybe there was a setting to adjust that and I did not learn about it?).
But you know better than most of us that user interface design [whatever form it takes] is critical to having a given new capability actually become readily adopted. As a car driver, I feel comfortable controlling a vehicle that extends a few feet in front and back of me, plus surrounding me. But I still marvel at truck drivers docking their long trailers at a warehouse, or ship captains docking a ship, or pilots controlling fighter, bomber, or airline aircraft.
But engineers (and managers) also need to learn that sometimes "better is the enemy of good enough" :-)
In the blog article I start by mocking the hype memetics of AI research, and then I discuss my work which tries to present a perspective towards the technology that is more grounded in the scientific state of the art as far as understanding human nature and Economics. That is, trying to present a formalism for understanding AI precisely and exactly in correspondence to how you define "Techno-Realism"
Good comments. Techno-realism is the only way, as someone with lots of engineering experience in electric power and aerospace, I can say with confidence there is no other successful approach. You can be forward thinking without falling prey to magical thinking.
Thanks for the comment.
I think engineers are natural Techno-realists. They are always having to deal with the "great ideas" of managers.
As a non-engineer who has worked with engineers my entire career, the challenge is to get them to see beyond the immediate technical barriers.
I have learned that when an engineer says "It cannot be done", they actually mean "I cannot yet think of a solution."
The good ones will see it as a challenge and let the idea stew in their mind. They later come back with "You know, I think we might actually be able to make your idea work. We just need to...
Despite this, I find engineers much easier to deal with than "I have a great idea" managers and execs who know nothing about the technical problems with their idea.
And the media is much worse. They just want to get ratings.
All good points. The problem of techno-optimists is probably perennial, but I feel it has gotten worse since the 1990s. I have been in the energy space since the late 1970s and the renewable energy space has been filled with techno-optimists for many decades. But its worse now, in the age of the supposed ‘energy transition’ where everyone and their dog is fucking (excuse my language) ‘energy expert’. The field is rife with magical thinking. As you say, some engineers are overly procedural and not inventors, and hence they may well NOT be able to advance things via creativity, but almost all serious technical innovations are made by people who are both technically strong, realistic, and creative. You can be a dreamer, and not believe in magic. The Wright Bros and Werner Von Braun are two obvious aerospace examples.
Yes, Green energy is where Techno-Optimism is most obvious.
I have an article on Green Techno-Optimism on Dec 6th. I think you will enjoy it.
Another recent article goes into detail on solar:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-solar-cannot-displace-fossil
Thank you, I will read it.
A lot of people dislike technological progress because they don't trust their ability to adapt as fast and efficiently as their peers,even at a subconscious level.
Yes, or they just dislike change.
My grandfather was very happy with 1950s technology. He would rather "make due" rather than try new technology. It is not terrible, but I am glad that not all people are like that.
Psychologists call it "Openness" (or actually the opposite)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
Yes, a good and valuable essay.
Especially your "caution" list from
"• It generally takes decades for a new technology:
• ...
• For all the secondary effects to ripple through the rest of the economy."
For myself, I might resist changes that don't seem to add much value compared to the time and effort I have already spent learning some new capability previously. Having a 3rd or 4th way to do the same thing I can do now is usually not very appealing. For example, when Apple came out with the mouse driven cursor, I initially resisted with an attitude of "just learn the command line prompts and you will be ok", but after a little exposure I really clicked with the mind/eye/hand coordination aspects of using a mouse. But when that core capability was transferred to thumb pads, I never liked that, as "too confining" for some reason - maybe because it required multiple strokes to really move the cursor to my desired location (or maybe there was a setting to adjust that and I did not learn about it?).
But you know better than most of us that user interface design [whatever form it takes] is critical to having a given new capability actually become readily adopted. As a car driver, I feel comfortable controlling a vehicle that extends a few feet in front and back of me, plus surrounding me. But I still marvel at truck drivers docking their long trailers at a warehouse, or ship captains docking a ship, or pilots controlling fighter, bomber, or airline aircraft.
But engineers (and managers) also need to learn that sometimes "better is the enemy of good enough" :-)
Thanks for popping this up in your feed, Michael :) I want to share my recent preprints I submitted for publication that I describe here:
https://philomaticalgorhythms.substack.com/p/ai-alignment-from-first-principles
In the blog article I start by mocking the hype memetics of AI research, and then I discuss my work which tries to present a perspective towards the technology that is more grounded in the scientific state of the art as far as understanding human nature and Economics. That is, trying to present a formalism for understanding AI precisely and exactly in correspondence to how you define "Techno-Realism"