From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 16:45:08 MDT
I think Robert makes an useful distinction that fits with the meaning I
was thinking (but not writing) when I posted. It is quite possible to
construct something that you know can be constructed given a centralized
project - perhaps the archetypal example would be the Soviet nuclear and
hydrogen bombs. Implementing something that is likely possible and well
defined as a goal, such as a space program, that is also rather amenable
to planning.
The real problem comes with planning true innovations in the sense of
devices or applications that have not been thought of before. By
definition they are unplannable, although they might be supported
afterwards. There were no plans for coming up with transistors, personal
computers or lasers. They were just the result of people playing around
with physics or building something which they wanted, and later useful
applications were found/invented.
In the context of this thread, I would say Japan has been very
successful in creating a climate for the more structured kinds of
innovation - innovating towards a goal known to be feasible or even done
before, as well as innovating within the context of a pre-existing
technology. But Japan does not per capita/investment seem to get the
same amount of fundamental innovations as the US. My guess is that the
consistent aim at producing results have limited the amount of creative
play needed to come up with the true innovations.
As for AI, I don't think it belongs to the category of known goals or
improvements of current methods. We still need some radical new
thinking, and that is hard to plan.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 09:24:29AM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Mark Walker wrote:
> > From: "Anders Sandberg":
> > > Real innovation cannot be planned, but you can try to set up a climate
> > > that benefits innovation.
> > >
> > Is this a definitional claim or an empirical claim. When the American's
> > planned to go to the Moon by the end of the decade was this not a case of
> > "real innovation"? From what you say I guess not. Why not?
>
> I think it is a little more subtle than this and depends on ones
> definition of "innovation". Does building a "bigger" rocket
> require "innovation"? Does building a more "reliable" rocket
> require "innovation"? Does designing a space suit require
> "innovation"? I would tend to lean in the direction that the
> application of principles one already knows should not be
> considered "innovation". It simply requires the application
> of sufficient resources to apply what one already knows.
> The creation of something "new" would be classified as "invention"
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 16:52:12 MDT