TechSector

The Techno-Sponge

After years of thinking about this, I have come up with a term that can describe the thoughts I have had about the new, 'good' type of deflation that is evading the notice of almost all of the top economists in the world today.  This changes many of the most fundamental assumptions about economics, even as most economic thought is far behind the curve. 

First, let us review some events that transpired over the last 2 years.  To stave off the prospect of a deflationary spiral that could lead to a depression, the major governments of the world followed 20th-century textbook economics, and injected colossal amounts of liquidity into the financial system.  In the US, not only was the Fed Funds rate lowered to nearly zero (for now 18 months and counting), but an additional $1 Trillion was injected in. 

However, now that a depression has been averted, and the recession has ended, we were supposed to experience inflation even amidst high unemployment, just like we did in the 1970s, to minimize debt burdens.  But alas, there is still no inflation, despite a yield curve with more than 3% steepness, and a near-0% FF rate for so long.  How could this be?  What is absorbing all the liquidity?   

In The Impact of Computing, I discussed how 1.5% of World GDP today comprises of products where the same functionality can be purchased for a price that halves every 18 months.  'Moore's Law' applies to semiconductors, but storage, software, and some biotech are also on a similar exponential curve.  This force makes productivity gains higher, and inflation lower, than traditional 20th century economics would anticipate.  Furthermore, the second derivative is also increasing - the rate of productivity gains itself is accelerating.  1.5% of World GDP may be small, but what about when this percentage grows to 3% of World GDP?  5%?  We may only be a decade away from this, and the impact of this technological deflation will be more obvious. 

Most high-tech companies have a business model that incorporates a sort of 'bizarro force' that is completely the opposite of what old-economy companies operate under : The price of the products sold by a high-tech company decreases over time.  Any other company will manage inventory, pricing, and forecasts under an assumption of inflationary price increases, but a technology company exists under the reality that all inventory depreciates very quickly (at over 10% per quarter in many cases), and that price drops will shrink revenues unless unit sales rise enough to offset it (and assuming that enough unit inventory was even produced).  This results in the constant pressure to create new and improved products every few months just to occupy prime price points, without which revenues would plunge within just a year.  Yet, high-tech companies have built hugely profitable businesses around these peculiar challenges, and at least 8 such US companies have market capitalizations over $100 Billion.  6 of those 8 are headquartered in Silicon Valley. 

Now, here is the point to ponder : We have never had a significant technology sector while also facing the fears (warranted or otherwise) of high inflation.  When high inflation vanished in 1982, the technology sector was too tiny to be considered a significant contributor to macroeconomic statistics.  In an environment of high inflation combined with a large technology industry, however, major consumer retail pricepoints, such as $99.99 or $199.99, become more affordable.  The same also applies to enterprise-class customers.  Thus, demand creeps upwards even as cost to produce the products goes down on the same Impact of Computing curve.  This allows a technology company the ability to postpone price drops and expand margins, or to sell more volume at the same nominal dollar price.  Hence, higher inflation causes the revenues and/or margins of technology companies to rise, which means their earnings-per-share certainly surges.

So what we are seeing is the gigantic amount of liquidity created by the Federal Reserve is instead cycling through technology companies and increasing their earnings.  The products they sell, in turn, increase productivity and promptly push inflation back down.  Every uptick in inflation merely guarantees its own pushback, and the 1.5% of GDP that mops up all the liquidity and creates this form of 'good' deflation can be termed as the 'Techno-Sponge'.  So how much liquidity can the Techno-Sponge absorb before saturation? 

At this point, if the US prints another $1 Trillion, that will still merely halt deflation, and there will be no hint of inflation at all.  It would take a full $2 Trillion to saturate the techno-sponge, and temporarily push consumer inflation to even the less-than-terrifying level of 4% while also generating substantial jumps in productivity and tech company earnings.  In fact, the demographics of the US, with baby boomers reaching their geriatric years, are highly deflationary (and this is the bad type of deflation), so the US would have to print another $1 Trillion every year for the next 10 years just to offset demographic deflation, and keep the techno-sponge saturated. 

A techno-sponge that is 1.5% of GDP might be keeping CPI inflation at under 2%, but when the techno-sponge is 3% of GDP, even trillions of dollars of liquidity won't halt deflation.  Deflation may become normal, even as living standards and productivity rise at ever-increasing rates.  The people who will suffer are holders of debt, particularly mortgage debt.  Inflating away debt will no longer be a tool available to rescue people (and governments) from their errors.  The biggest beneficiaries will be technology companies, and those who are tied to them. 

But to keep prosperity rising, productivity has to rise at the maximum possible rate.  This requires the Techno-Sponge to be kept full at all times - the 'new normal'.  Thus, the printing press has to start on the first $1 Trillion now, and printing has to continue until we see inflation.  Economists will be surprised at how much can be printed without seeing any inflation, and will not be able to draw the connection about why the printed money is boosting productivity. 

Related :

The Impact of Computing

Timing the Singularity

Timing the Singularity

The Singularity.  The event when the rate of technological change becomes human-surpassing, just as the advent of human civilization a few millenia ago surpassed the comprehension of non-human creatures. So when will this event happen?

There is a great deal of speculation on the 'what' of the Singularity, whether it will create a utopia for humans, cause the extinction of humans, or some outcome in between.  Versions of optimism (Star Trek) and pessimism (The Matrix, Terminator) all become fashionable at some point.  No one can predict this reliably, because the very definition of the singularity itself precludes such prediction.  Given the accelerating nature of technological change, it is just as hard to predict the world of 2050 from 2009, as it would have been to predict 2009 from, say, 1200 AD.  So our topic today is not going to be about the 'what', but rather the 'when' of the Singularity. 

Let us take a few independent methods to arrive at estimations on the timing of the Singularity.

1) Ray Kurzweil has constructed this logarithmic chart that combines 15 unrelated lists of key historic events since the Big Bang 15 billion years ago.  The exact selection of events is less important than the undeniable fact that the intervals between such independently selected events are shrinking exponentially.  This, of course, means that the next several major events will occur within single human lifetimes. 

Kurzweil wrote with great confidence, in 2005, that the Singularity would arrive in 2045.  One thing I find about Kurzweil is that he usually predicts the nature of an event very accurately, but overestimates the rate of progress by 50%.  Part of this is because he insists that computer power per dollar doubles every year, when it actually doubles every 18 months, which results in every other date he predicts to be distorted as a downstream byproduct of this figure.  Another part of this is that Kurzweil, born in 1948, is taking extreme measures to extend his lifespan, and quite possibly may have an expectation of living until 100 but not necessarily beyond that.  A Singularity in 2045 would be before his century mark, but herein lies a lesson for us all.  Those who have a positive expectation of what the Singularity will bring tend to have a subconscious bias towards estimating it to happen within their expected lifetimes.  We have to be watchful enough to not let this bias influence us.  So when Kurzweil says that the Singularity will be 40 years from 2005, we can apply the discount to estimate that it will be 60 years from 2005, or in 2065. 

2) John Smart is a brilliant futurist with a distinctly different view on accelerating change from Ray Kurzweil, but he has produced very little visible new content in the last 5 years.  In 2003, he predicted the Singularity for 2060, +/- 20 years.  Others like Hans Moravec and Vernor Vinge also have declared predictions at points in the mid/late 21st century. 

3) Ever since the start of the fictional Star Trek franchise in 1966, they have made a number of predictions about the decades since, with impressive accuracy.  In Star Trek canon, humanity experiences a major acceleration of progress starting from 2063, upon first contact with an extraterrestrial civilization.  While my views on first contact are somewhat different from the Star Trek prediction, it is interesting to note that their version of a 'Singularity' happened to occur in 2063 (as per the 1996 film Star Trek : First Contact). 

4) Now for my own methodology.  We shall first take a look at novel from 1863 by Jules Verne, titled "Paris in the 20th Century".  Set about a century in the future from Verne's perspective, the novel predicts innovations such as air conditioning, automobiles, helicopters, fax machines, and skyscrapers in detail.  Such accuracy makes Jules Verne the greatest futurist of the 19th century, but notice how his predictions involve innovations that occured within 120 years of writing.  Verne did not predict exponential growth in computation, genomics, artificial intelligence, cellular phones, and other innovations that emerged more than 120 years after 1863.  Thus, Jules Verne was up against a 'prediction wall' of 120 years, which was much longer than a human lifespan in the 19th century. 

But now, the wall is closer.  In the 3.5 years since the inception of The Futurist, I have consistently noticed a 'prediction wall' on all long-term forecasts, that makes it very difficult to make specific predictions beyond 2040 or so.  In contrast, it was not very hard to predict the state of technology in 1930 from the year 1900, just 30 years prior.  Despite all the inventions between 1900 and 1930, the diffusion rate was very slow, and it took well over 30 years for many innovations to affect the majority of the population.  The diffusion rate of innovation is much faster today, and the pervasive Impact of Computing is impossible to ignore.  This 'event horizon' that we now see does not mean the Singularity will be as soon as 2040, as the final couple of decades before the Singularity may still be too fast to make predictions about until we get much closer.  But the compression of such a wall/horizon from 120 years in Jules Verne's time to 30 years today gives us some idea of the second derivative in the rate of change, and many other top futurists have observed the same approaching phenomenon.  By 2030, the prediction wall may thus be only 15 years away.  By the time of the Singularity, the wall would be almost immediately ahead from a human perspective. 

So we can return to the Impact of Computing as a driver of the 21st century economy.  In the article, I have written about how about $700 Billion per year as of 2008, which is 1.5% of World GDP, comprises of products that improve at an average of 59% a year per dollar spent.  Moore's Law is a subset of this, but this cost deflation applies to storage, software, biotechnology, and a few other industries as well. 

If products tied to the Impact of Computing are 1.5% of the global economy today, what happens when they are 3%? 5%?  Perhaps we would reach a Singularity when such products are 50% of the global economy, because from that point forward, the other 50% would very quickly diminish into a tiny percentage of the economy, particularly if that 50% was occupied by human-surpassing artificial intelligence.   

We can thus calculate a range of dates by when products tied to the Impact of Computing become more than half of the world economy.  In the table, the columns signify whether one assumes that 1%, 1.5%, or 2% of the world economy is currently tied, and the rows signify the rate at which this percentage share of the economy is increasing, whether 6%, 7%, or 8%.  This range is derived from the fact that the semiconductor industry has a 12-14%% nominal growth trend, while nominal world GDP grows at 6-7% (some of which is inflation).  Another way of reading the table is that if you consider the Impact of Computing to affect 1% of World GDP, but that share grows by 8% a year, then that 1% will cross the 50% threshold in 2059.  Note how a substantial downward revision in the assumptions moves the date outward only by years, rather than centuries or even decades. 

We see these parameters deliver a series of years, with the median values arriving at around the same dates as aforementioned estimates.  Taking all of these points in combination, we can predict the timing of the Singularity.  I hereby predict that the Technological Singularity will occur in :

2060-65 ± 10 years

So the earliest that it can occur is 2050 (hence the URL of this site), and the latest is 2075, with the highest probability of occurance in 2060-65.  There is virtually no statistical probability that it can occur outside of the 2050-75 range (sorry, Ray). 

So now we know the 'when' of the Singularity.  We just don't know the 'what', nor can we with any certainty. 

Related :

The Impact of Computing

Are You Acceleration Aware?

Pre-Singularity Abundance Milestones

SETI and the Singularity

Wolfram Alpha : The Birth of Web 3.0

The Wolfram Alpha engine is set to be launched.  Rather than a search engine, it is an 'answer engine' that interprets actual questions and answers them in accordance with their intended meaning. 

Here is a video demonstrating the Wolfram Alpha engine. 

I have written about the Semantic Web back on June 11, 2007.  The Wolfram Alpha, at first, will seem rather underwhelming, and will merely enable high-school and college students (as well as bloggers) to conduct their research more easily.  But as refinements accumulate and users go through their own learning curve, we could see a major transformation in Internet usage starting around 2012. 

The Wolfram Alpha will be the first mainstream experience of the Semantic Web, much as the launch of the Netscape Navigator browser in late 1994 heralded the arrival of the World Wide Web to the mainstream.  The launch of the Wolfram Alpha will be a similar moment in technological progress, and while it will not be as much on an incremental jump in user experience as Netscape Navigator was, consider that when Netscape Navigator was launched, it could only be accessed by desktop PCs, as there were virtually no laptops and mobile phones in 1994.  Furthermore, countries like India and China did not even have more than a handful of desktop PCs at the time.  But today, in 2009, there are devices of many shapes and sizes, across many countries, than can access the Wolfram Alpha on the first day. 

This does not mean that Wolfram Alpha will be the most successful Web 3.0 product.  Recall how Netscape failed to win the marathon despite the early dominance, and how Google surpassed earlier search engines like Lycos, AltaVista, and Yahoo.  The technology, and the trends underlying it, always supercede any one company or individual. 

Thus, we have arrived at the start of the third chapter of the Internet age.  Web 1.0 (the information web) ran from 1991 until 2001.  2001-03 was a nuclear winter for the Internet, which ended with Web 2.0 (the collaboration web) that ran from 2003 until 2009, and Web 3.0 (the semantic web) will begin now, in May 2009. 

The Impact of Computing, 78% More Each Year

Anyone who follows technology is familar with Moore's Law and its many variations, and has come to expect the price of computing power to halve every 18 months.  But many people don't see the true long-term impact of this beyond the need to upgrade their computer every three or four years.  To not internalize this more deeply is to miss investment opportunities, grossly mispredict the future, and be utterly unprepared for massive, sweeping changes to human society.  Hence, it is time to update the first version of this all-important article that was written on February 21, 2006.

Today, we will introduce another layer to the concept of Moore's Law-type exponential improvement. Consider that on top of the 18-month doubling times of both computational power and storage capacity (an annual improvement rate of 59%), both of these industries have grown by an average of approximately 12% a year for the last fifty years. Individual years have ranged between +30% and -12%, but let us say that the trend growth of both industries is 12% a year for the next couple of decades.

So, we can conclude that a dollar gets 59% more power each year, and 12% more dollars are absorbed by such exponentially growing technology each year. If we combine the two growth rates to estimate the rate of technology diffusion simultaneously with exponential improvement, we get (1.59)(1.12) = 1.78

The Impact of Computing grows at a scorching pace of 78% a year.

Sure, this is a very imperfect method of measuring technology diffusion, but many visible examples of this surging wave present themselves.  Consider the most popular television shows of the 1970s, where the characters had all the household furnishings and electrical appliances that are common today, except for anything with computational capacity. Yet, economic growth has averaged 3.5% a year since that time, nearly doubling the standard of living in the United States since 1970. It is obvious what has changed during this period, to induce the economic gains.

We can take the concept even closer to the present.  Among 1990s sitcoms, how many plot devices would no longer exist in the age of cellphones and Google Maps?  Consider the episode of Seinfeld entirely devoted to the characters not being able to find their car, or each other, in a parking structure (1991).  Or this legendary bit from a 1991 episode in a Chinese restaurant.  These situations are simply obsolete in the era of cellphones.  This situation (1996) would be obsolete in the era of digital cameras, while the 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' situation would be obsolete in an era of Netflix and YouTube. 

In the 1970s, there was virtually no household product with a semiconductor component.  In the 1980s, many people bought basic game consoles like the Atari 2600, had digital calculators, and purchased their first VCR, but only a fraction of the VCR's internals, maybe 20%, comprised of exponentially deflating semiconductors, so VCR prices did not drop that much per year.  In the early 1990s, many people began to have home PCs. For the first time, a major, essential home device was pegged to the curve of 18-month halvings in cost per unit of power.  In the late 1990s, the PC was joined by the Internet connection and the DVD player. 

Now, I want everyone reading this to tally up all the items in their home that qualify as 'Impact of Computing' devices, which is any hardware device where a much more powerful/capacious version will be available for the same price in 2 years.  You will be surprised at how many devices you now own that did not exist in the 80s or even the 90s.

Include : Actively used PCs, LCD/Plasma TVs and monitors, DVD players, game consoles, digital cameras, digital picture frames, home networking devices, laser printers, webcams, TiVos, Slingboxes, Kindles, robotic toys, every mobile phone, every iPod, and every USB flash drive.  Count each car as 1 node, even though modern cars may have $4000 of electronics in them.

Do not include : Tube TVs, VCRs, film cameras, individual video games or DVDs, or your washer/dryer/oven/clock radio just for having a digital display, as the product is not improving dramatically each year. 

How many 'Impact of Computing' Nodes do you currently own?
	Under 10
	11-15
	16-20
	21+
Free polls from Pollhost.com

If this doesn't persuade people of the exponentially accelerating penetration of information technology, then nothing can.

To summarize, the number of devices in an average home that are on this curve, by decade :

1960s and earlier : 0

1970s : 0-1

1980s : 1-2

1990s : 3-4

2000s : 6-12

2010s : 15-30

The average home of 2020 will have multiple ultrathin TVs hung like paintings, robots for a variety of simple chores, VR-ready goggles and gloves for advanced gaming experiences, sensors and microchips embedded into clothing, $100 netbooks more powerful than $10,000 workstations of today, surface computers, intelligent LED lightbulbs with motion-detecting sensors, cars with features that even luxury models of today don't have, and at least 15 nodes on a home network that manages the entertainment, security, and energy infrastructure of the home simultaneously. 

Now, the economic impact of this is substantial.  Refer to the Future Timeline for Economics, particularly the 2014, 2024, and 2034 entries.  Deflation has traditionally been a bad thing, but the Impact of Computing has introduced a second form of deflation.  A good one. 

It is true that from 2001 to 2009, the US economy has actually shrunk in size, if measured in oil, gold, or Euros.  To that, I counter that every major economy in the world, including the US, has grown tremendously if measured in Gigabytes of RAM, TeraBytes of storage, or MIPS of processing power, all of which have fallen in price by about 40X during this period.  One merely has to select any suitable product, such as a 42-inch plasma TV in the diagram, to see how quickly purchasing power has risen.  What took 500 hours of median wages to purchase in 2002 now takes just 40 hours of median wages in 2009.  Pessimists counter that computing is too small a part of the economy for this to be a significant prosperity elevator.  But let's see how much of the global economy is devoted to computing relative to oil (let alone gold).

Oil at $50/barrel amounts to about $1500 Billion per year out of global GDP.  When oil rises, demand falls, and we have not seen oil demand sustain itself to the extent of elevating annual consumption to more than $2000 Billion per year.

Semiconductors are a $250 Billion industry and storage is a $200 Billion industry.  Software, photonics, and biotechnology are deflationary in the same way as semiconductors and storage, and these three industries combined are another $500 Billion in revenue, but their rate of deflation is less clear, so let's take just half of this number ($250 Billion) as suitable for this calculation.

So $250B + $200B + $250B = $700 Billion that is already deflationary under the Impact of Computing.  This is about 1.5% of world GDP, and is a little under half the size of global oil revenues. 

The impact is certainly not small, and since the growth rate of these sectors is higher than that of the broader economy, what about when it becomes 3% of world GDP?  5%?  Will this force of good deflation not exert influcence on every set of economic data?  At the moment, it is all but impossible to get major economics bloggers to even acknowledge this growing force.  But over time, it will be accepted as a limitless well of rising prosperity. 

12% more dollars spent each year, and each dollar buys 59% more power each year.  Combine the two and the impact is 78% more every year. 

Related :

A Future Timeline for Economics

Economic Growth is Exponential and Accelerating

Are You Acceleration Aware?

Pre-Singularity Abundance Milestones

The Technological Progression of Video Games

Nanotechnology : Bubble, Bust,....Boom?

All of us remember the dot-com bubble, the crippling bust that eventually was a correction of 80% from the peak, and the subsequent moderated recovery.  This was easy to notice as there were many publicly traded companies that could be tracked daily.

I believe that nanotechnology underwent a similar bubble, peaking in early 2005, and has been in a bust for the subsequent four years.  Allow me to elaborate.

By 2004, major publications were talking about nanotech as if it was about to surge.  Lux Capital was publishing a much-anticipated annual 'Nanotech Report'.  There was even a company by the name of NanoSys that was preparing for an IPO in 2004.  BusinessWeek even had an entire issue devoted to all things nanotech in February 2005.  We were supposed to get excited. 

But immediately after the BusinessWeek cover, everything seemed to go downhill.  Nanosys did not conduct an IPO, nor did any other company.  Lux Capital only published a much shorter report by 2006, and stopped altogether in 2007 and 2008.  No other major publication devoted an entire issue to the topic of nanotechnology.  Venture capital flowing to nanotech ventures dried up.  Most importantly, people stopped talking about nanotechnology altogether. 

The rock bottom was reached at the very end of 2008.  Regular readers will recall that on January 3, 2009, I noticed that MIT Technology Review conspicuously omitted a section titled 'The Year in Nanotech' among their year-end roundup of innovations for the outgoing year.  I could not help but wonder why they stopped producing a nanotech roundup altogether, and I subsequently concluded that we were in a multi-year nanotech winter, and that the MIT Technology Review omission marked the lowest point.

But there are signs that nanotech is on the brink of emerging from its chrysalis.  The university laboratories are humming again, promising to draw the genie out of its magic lamp.  In just the first 12 weeks of 2009, carbon nanotubes, after staying out of the news for years, have suddenly been making headlines.  Entire 'forests' of nanotubes are now being grown (image from MIT Tech Review) and can be used for a variety of previously unrelated applications.  Beyond this, there is suddenly activity in nanotube electronics, light-sensitive nanotubes, nanotube superbatteries, and even nanotube muscles that are as light as air, flexible as rubber, but stronger than steel.  And all this is just nanotubes.  Nanomedicine, nanoparticle glue, and nanosensors are also joining the party.  All this bodes well for the prospect of catching up to where we currently should be on the trendline of molecular engineering. 

The recovery out of the nanotech winter could not be happening at a better time.  Nanotech is thus set to be one of the four sectors of technology (the others being solar energy, surface computing, and wireless data) that pull the global economy out of this recession in late 2009. 

Related :

Milli, Micro, Nano, Pico

Pre-Singularity Abundance Milestones

I am of the belief that we will experience a Technological Singularity around 2050 or shortly thereafter. Many top futurists all arrive at prediction dates between 2045 and 2075. The bulk of Singularity debate revolves not so much around 'if' or even 'when', but rather 'what' the Singularity will appear like, and whether it will be positive or negative for humanity.

To be clear, some singularities have already happened.  To non-human creatures, a technological singularity that overhauls their ecosystem already happened over the course of the 20th century.  Domestic dogs and cats are immersed in a singularity where most of their surroundings surpass their comprehension.  Even many humans have experienced a singularity - elderly people in poorer nations make no use of any of the major technologies of the last 20 years, except possibly the cellular phone.  However, the Singularity that I am talking about has to be one that affects all humans, and the entire global economy, rather that just humans that are marginal participants in the economy.  By definition, the real Technological Singularity has to be a 'disruption in the fabric of humanity'. 

In the period between 2008 and 2050, there are several milestones one can watch for in order to see if the path to a possibile Singularity is still being followed.  Each of these signifies a previously scarce resource becoming almost infinitely abundant (much like paper today, which was a rare and precious treasure centuries ago), or a dramatic expansion in human experience (such as the telephone, airplane, and Internet have been) to the extent that it can even be called a transhuman experience.  The following are a random selection of milestones with their anticipated dates. 

Technological :

Hours spent in videoconferencing surpass hours spent in air travel/airports : 2015

Video games with interactive, human-level AI : 2018

Semi-realistic fully immersive virtual reality : 2020

Over 5 billion people connected to the Internet (mostly wirelessly) at speeds greater than 10 Mbps : 2022

Over 30 network-connected devices in the average household worldwide : 2025

1 TeraFLOPS of computing power costs $1 : 2026

1 TeraWatt of worldwide photovoltaic power capacity : 2027

1 Petabyte of storage costs $1 : 2028

1 Terabyte of RAM costs $1 : 2031

An artificial intelligence can pass the Turing Test : 2040

Biological :

Complete personal genome sequencing costs $1000 : 2020

Cancer is no longer one of the top 5 causes of death : 2025

Complete personal genome sequencing costs $10 : 2030

Human life expectancy achieves Actuarial Escape Velocity for wealthy individuals : 50% chance by 2040

Economic :

Average US household net worth crosses $2 million in nominal dollars : 2024

90% of humans living in nations with a UN Human Development Index greater than 0.800 (the 2008 definition of a 'developed country', approximately that of the US in 1960) : 2025

10,000 billionaires worldwide (nominal dollars) : 2030

World GDP per Capita crosses $50,000 in 2008 dollars : 2045

_________________________________________________________________

Each of these milestones, while not causing a Singularity by themselves, increase the probability of a true Technological Singularity, with the event horizon pulled in closer to that date.  Or, the path taken to each of these milestones may give rise to new questions and metrics altogether.  We must watch for each of these events, and update our predictions for the 'when' and 'what' of the Singularity accordingly. 

Related : The Top 10 Transhumanist Technologies

Can Buildings be 'Printed'?

I have discussed the possibility of 3-D printing of solid objects before, in this article where company #5, Desktop Factory, is detailed.  However, the Desktop Factory product can only produce objects that have a maximum size of 5 X 5 X 5 inches, and it can only use one type of material. 

On the Next Big Future blog, the author quite frequently profiles a future product capable of 'printing' entire buildings. This technology, known as 'Contour Crafting', can supposedly construct buildings at greater than 10 times the speed, yet at just one-fifth the cost of traditional construction processes. It is claimed that the first commercial machines will be available in 2008 itself.

Despite my general optimism, this particular machine does not pass my 'too good to be true' test, at least before 2020. A machine that could construct homes and commercial buildings at such a speed and cost would cause an unprecedented economic disruption across the world. There would be a steep but brief depression, as existing real estate loses 90% or more of its value, followed by a huge boom as home ownership becomes affordable to several times as many people as today. I don't think that we are on the brink of such a revolution.

For me to be convinced, I would have to see :

1) Articles on this device in mainstream publications like The Economist, BusinessWeek, MIT Technology Review, or Popular Mechanics.

2) The ability to at least print simple constructs like concrete perimeter walls or sidewalks at a rate and cost several times superior to current methods. Only then can more complex structures be on the horizon.

I will revisit this technology if either of these two conditions is solidly met.

(crossposted on The Futurist)

Surfaces : The Next Killer Ap in Computing

Computing, once seamlessly synonymous with technological progress, has not grabbed headlines in recent memory. We have not had a 'killer ap' in computing in the last few years.  Maybe you can count Wi-fi access to laptops in 2002-03 as the most recent one, but if that is not a sufficiently important innovation, we then have to go all the way back to the graphical World Wide Web browser in 1995.  Before that, the killer ap was Microsoft Office for Windows in 1990.  Clearly, such shifts appear to occur at intervals of 5-8 years. 

I can, without hesitation, nominate surface computing as the next great generational augmentation in the computing experience.  This is because surface computing entirely transforms the human-computer interaction in a matter that is more suitable for the human body than the mouse/keyboard model is.  In accordance with the Impact of Computing, rapid drops in the costs of both high-definition displays and tactile sensors are set to bring this experience to consumers by the end of this decade. 

BusinessWeek has a slideshow featuring several different products for surface computing.  Over ten major electronics companies have surface computing products available.  The most visible is the Microsoft Surface, which sells for about $10,000, but will probably drop to $3000 or less within 3-4 years, enabling household adoption. 

As far as early applications of surface computing, a fertile imagination can yield many prospects.  For example, a restaurant table may feature a surface that displays the menu, enabling patrons to order simply by touching the picture of the item they choose.  The information is sent to the kitchen, and this saves time and reduces the number of waiters needed by the restaurant (as waiters would only be needed to deliver the completed orders).  Applications for classroom and video game settings also readily present themselves. 

Watch for demonstrations of various surface computers at your local electronics store, and keep an eye on the price drops.  After seeing a demonstration, do share at what pricepoint you might purchase one.  The next generation of computing beckons. 

Related :

The Impact of Computing

Is Technology Diffusion in a Lull?

There are minor but growing elements of evidence that the rate of technological change has moderated in this decade.  Whether this is a temporary trough that merely precedes a return to the trendline, or whether the trendline itself was greatly overestimated, will not be decisively known for some years.  In this article, I will attempt to examine some datapoints to determine whether we are at, or behind, where we would expect to be in 2008. 

There is overwhelming evidence that many seemingly unrelated technologies are progressing at an accelerating rate.  However, the exact magnitude to the accelerating gradient - the second derivative - is difficult to measure with precision.  Furthermore, there are periods where advancement can be significantly above or below any such trendline. 

This brings us to the chart below from Ray Kurzweil (from Wikipedia) :

 

This chart appears prominently in many of Kurzweil's writings, and brilliantly conveys the concept of how each major consumer technology reached the mainstream (as defined by a 25% US household penetration rate) in successively shorter times.  The horizontal axis represents the year in which the technology was invented. 

This chart was produced some years ago, and therein lies the problem.  If we were to update the chart to the present day, which technology would be the next addition after 'The Web'? 

Many technologies can claim to be the ones to occupy the next position on the chart.  IPods and other portable mp3 players, various Web 2.0 applications like social networking, and flat-panel TVs all reached the 25% level of mainstream adoption in under 6 years in accordance with an extrapolation of the chart through 2008.  However, it is debatable that any of these are 'revolutionary' technologies like the ones on the chart, rather than merely increments above incumbent predecessors.  The iPod merely improved upon the capacity and flexibility of the walkman, the plasma TV merely consumed less space than the tube TV, etc.  The technologies on the chart are all infrastructures of some sort, and it is clear that after 'The Web', we are challenged to find a suitable candidate for the next entry. 

Thus, we either are on the brink of some overdue technology emerging to reach 25% penetration of US households in 6 years or less, or the rapid diffusion of the Internet truly was a historical anomaly, and for the period from 2001 to 2008 we were merely correcting back to a trendline of much slower diffusion (where it take 10-15 years for a technology to each 25% penetration in the US).  One of the two has to be true, at least for an affluent society like the US.

This brings us to the third and final dimension of possibility.  This being the decade of globalization, with globalization itself being an expected natural progression of technological change, perhaps a US-centric chart itself was inappropriate to begin with.  Landline telephones and television sets still do not have 25% penetration in countries like India, but mobile phones jumped from zero to 10% penetration in under 7 years.  The oft-cited 'leapfrogging' of technologies that developing nations can benefit from is a crucial piece of technological diffusion, which would thus show a much smaller interval between 'telephones' and 'mobile phones' than in the US-based chart above.  Perhaps '10% Worldwide Household Penetration' is a more suitable measure than '25% US Household Penetration', which would then possibly show that there is no lull in worldwide technological adoption at all. 

I may try to put together this new worldwide chart.  The horizontal axis would not change, but the placement of datapoints along the vertical axis would.  Perhaps Kurzweil merely has to break out of US-centricity in order to strengthen his case and rebut most of his critics. 

The future will disclose the results to us soon enough.

(crossposted on The Futurist)

Related :

Are You Acceleration Aware?

The Impact of Computing

These are the Best of Times