The Next Big Thing

  • Thread starter Famine
  • 48 comments
  • 1,658 views

Famine

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author
Administrator
86,434
United Kingdom
Rule 12
GTP_Famine
We live in a very technologically advanced age right now - at the peak of human endeavour, and reaching a new one each day (except on those very rare occasions we just slip a little - like when Concorde was decommissioned).

Small things change our lives in small ways - microwave ovens allow us to cook just that little faster, mobile phones allow us to speak to people before we get home, MP3 players allow us to listen to our music anywhere - and are often supplanted by the next slightly zippier thing, but there are also the BIG things that change human life forever and are never replaced.

Some examples of this:
The wheel - allowed us to move more than we could carry in one go. Pretty big, I'd say.
Fire - allowed us to warm ourselves, to sustain us in cold climates, and eat hot food to remove some risk of food poisoning. Possibly the first example of man adapting his environment to suit him...
The gun - brings defence and a means of hunting into the palm of the hand. Love it or loathe it, the gun changed humanity forever and the idea of self-contained defence will remain with us, even (especially?) creeping into our sci-fi future.
The steam engine - provides us with immeasurably more motive power than we can make ourselves and is still used today as the primary form of electricity generation.
Electricity - gives us light when it's dark, heat or cold at a moment's notice, entertainment, a psychiatric treatment. Electricity will always be with us.
The car - brought the notion of rapid personalised transport to the masses. It may have been altered over the centuries (120 years old now) to be whizzier and may well be altered over the next few centuries in order to fly, but the fundamental concept of the car as personalised transport will never change.
The aeroplane - made accessible to all the places we'd only ever read about and changed the face of armed conflict. Airborne transportation is another concept that will stay with us forever.
The missile - irrevocably changed the face of armed conflict. No more pesky wastes of manpower, and whomever has the most guys wins. Now you can blow your enemy up from home will sipping your tea. But ALSO has a "peacetime" application - the aeroplane shrinks the world, the missile brings us to other worlds entirely. The future of mankind depends on us getting the hell off this one, and the missile is what makes that concept possible.
Nuclear fission/fusion - again with the wars, but also gives us the ability to defend ourselves from falling rocks which would extinguish all life on the planet and gives us effectively free energy - what's a few churned up rocks next to burning everything on the planet to keep us in electricity?
The internet/satellite communications - shrinks the world to the size of a few electrons. Anyone can contact anyone else, nearly anywhere else in the world - and, with the internet, show them what they look like and what car they pretend to drive - at any time. The internet changed information, news, banking, business - everything. Humanity now IS a global communication network, and if we do ever reach other worlds, we'll be setting another one up right away.
Gene therapy - Not content with changing our environment to suit, now we can change ourselves to suit. This is a real biggie. Gene therapy has the potential to cure all genetic diseases, though right now it's in its early stages.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it gives you an idea of the sheer magnitude of what I'm looking for here.

And that is... what is the NEXT Big Thing? The next invention that we didn't know we were missing until it arrived, which will completely change the human race and stay with it as long as it exists?

Discuss:
 
The next stage of the internet or phone, if not possible, the next generation after that. We can see people in a virtual world in 3D, possibly by hooking a device on your head connected to the PC/Portable device. That would be the ultimate way of communitcating to someone as close to real life as possible without travelling in cars to get to place to place. A bit like the Matix, maybe not as good. It makes such a big difference seeing someone while you talk to them.

It would be ever so great to contact relatives and see them at the same time - webcams are just so crap... Mind you, this could contribute to the lack of excerise we take. I guess there will always be flaws with whatever we make... I guess we'll have anti-fat drugs/devices by then anyway. :lol:

In fact, that could be another BIG thing. 💡
 
I'd say the next big thing is actually going to be quite small. Nanotechnology is going to lead to a mess of new things, and could create new ways in which we all live. Nanotechnology has allready created plastics that can self-heal, and could lead to some crazy ways in which other technologies are created and repaired.

...I would say the best future comes in at the medical level, in which operations could only require an injection of the nanobots, as they would perform the operation on the subject without having to be cut open.
 
Teleportation. Why call when you can BE there?

OK, maybe that's not exactly next. . . . . but it's big!

Realistically, cheap solar. All the energy we need for ANYTHING is being blasted at us all day every day, and we can't change it into useful forms cheaply enough to use, or store it once it's changed. Forget alternative fuels, that's still burning something to make heat to run an engine of some kind. Just change light into the energy to run something, and you're done.

That's what makes oil so good. It's energy in storage. A tank full of watts. That's what makes electricity so useless for mobile applications; it's hard to store enough of it to be useful. Look at electric trains, how efficient they can be, as long as you want to go where the tracks and wires are.

Today's solar cells trickle a miniscule current from a huge amount of sunlight, and then we can't keep it anywhere, we have to use it right away or waste it. A change in that technology will be a HUGE leap forward.
 
I don't know... these things all seem small to me (edit: not had a chance to read the above post yet).

Nanotechnology... meh. It's making things smaller It's still materials technology or medical technology, just at a new level. It's liable to be supplanted by something even smarter, faster or smaller at some point - picotechnology or quantumwhatever - which still does the same job... I'm talking about things that create entirely new disciplines. Rocket science didn't exist until around WW2, and now we send things up into space every other week. Automotive engineering didn't exist until the 1880s, and now we get into cars at least twice a day, for the average person. Ask someone in 1632 what nuclear physics was and they'd look at you blank, then hang you as a witch.

"The next stage of the internet" is just that. It's an expansion on an existing technology.

I'm looking for something that if someone came back from the future - say, 2030 - and told you what it was, it'd take an awful long time to describe it, but yet in the intervening time there's already 37 companies, some based in Korea, making things to do it. I'm talking real Star Trek stuff - deflector shields, transporters, warp drive, replicators, that kind of thing. What do you think the next truely revolutionary concept will be?
 
I would agree that Star Trek holds many of the answers to the future, but unfortunately we are still a long way from having things such as Warp Drives and Deflector Shields.

...Maybe if we can figure out a way to go back in time and visit San Francisco in the 1970s, we could visit a glass factory and teach them how to make super-strong glass, and then jump forward in the future and teach oursevles how to make warp drive.

That way we can save the whales AND meet the Vulcans in less than a week!

(ha ha, I'm sorry. I am a quasi-Trek fan)
 
It was transparent aluminum, not glass, so.... Wait.

OMG, did I just make a Star Trek fact correction in a public forum!!!!!:scared:

Please shoot me now and just get it over with.:guilty:
 
Famine

Nanotechnology... meh. It's making things smaller It's still materials technology or medical technology, just at a new level. It's liable to be supplanted by something even smarter, faster or smaller at some point - picotechnology or quantumwhatever - which still does the same job...

No no no. Not "nanotechnology", "nanotubes", which are a new kind of material. A material so strong that people want to use it to build an elevator to space. That would probably be the biggest leap mankind has ever made.
 
wfooshee
It was transparent aluminum, not glass, so.... Wait.

OMG, did I just make a Star Trek fact correction in a public forum!!!!!:scared:

Please shoot me now and just get it over with.:guilty:

ROFL!

I'm not sure what the "next big thing" is going to be. But when we are able to traverse our own solar system in a matter of moments, that will certainly change everything.
 
danoff
No no no. Not "nanotechnology", "nanotubes", which are a new kind of material. A material so strong that people want to use it to build an elevator to space. That would probably be the biggest leap mankind has ever made.

Nanotechnology was YSSMAN's one...

I'm not sure if materials would count. They're just new ways of building things - and will be supplanted by even newer ways, 50 years down the line. 2150-man might say "Nanotubes? How quaint!" but his life would still involve some form of worldwide communication, airborne travel, personalised transport, heat, electricity, the microprocessor (which should go on my list) and so on and so forth... If microfilaments are revolutionary, then so were their predecessors, and so will their successors be - but anything that has predecessors and/or successors is pretty much excluded. We're talking the creation of completely new fields and disciplines which didn't exist 5 years ago but will remain with us until the end of us.
 
Famine
Nanotechnology was YSSMAN's one...

I'm not sure if materials would count. They're just new ways of building things - and will be supplanted by even newer ways, 50 years down the line. 2150-man might say "Nanotubes? How quaint!" but his life would still involve some form of worldwide communication, airborne travel, personalised transport, heat, electricity, the microprocessor (which should go on my list) and so on and so forth... If microfilaments are revolutionary, then so were their predecessors, and so will their successors be - but anything that has predecessors and/or successors is pretty much excluded. We're talking the creation of completely new fields and disciplines which didn't exist 5 years ago but will remain with us until the end of us.

Ok, well it won't create a new field, but it has the potential to do for space what the airfoil did for the atmosphere.
 
Artificial intelligence looks like a very good candidate for the next one. I'm not speaking of the small ai features that we currently use as tools, but real autonomous systems, which will completely turn the world upside down.

Why would one hire a team of engineers, architects, accountants, or operators over machines that can do a much faster and more accurate job, for much more than 40 hours a week? They also have a huge advantage in terms of accuracy and speed for communications between themselves.

This will not only have very deep economical and social consequences, but will change they way wars are fought, too. It's obviously a big double-edge sword, even worse than nuclear power was.
 
How about the exoskeleton? This technology is by no means "new," but it hasn't been a "big thing" either. Not yet, anyways. It is simple, and has many uses.

Humans, from a physical perspective, are about as basic as it gets. Our skin is not thick and we lack fangs, claws, or thick fur. We have to rely on our intelligence to artificially manufacture subsitutes normally found on other animals. Clothing, weapons, and automobiles have solved much of our problems. Humans tend to find ways to make up for deficiencies.

Exoskeletons, ideally, would be made from extremely lightweight materials. It will enable the user to carry or move enormous weight and this weight will spread across the exoskeleton. It will relieve any stress involved in carrying or moving the weight. Besides the obvious military uses, the average consumer can benefit from this technology. For example, I no longer have to call my friends to help move my massive television upstairs!

We are always moving large and heavy objects. The garbage man can pick up the large dumpster without the aid of the truck or rescue workers can remove the car that has pinned down a person during an accident. No more back problems due to carrying heavy backpacks for school at a young age. Anyone can make up for their deficiencies, whether it is height, weight, or strength with an exoskeleton.
 
Carl.
Why would one hire a team of engineers, architects, accountants, or operators over machines that can do a much faster and more accurate job, for much more than 40 hours a week?
None of those professions you listed are algorithmic. No matter how good AI gets, it will still be a computer program with defined pathways and limits.

Do you want to fly in an airplane that was never touched by humans? How about setting foot in a skyscraper built entirely by robots?

Lastly, I'm not sure how keen that team of engineers will be to design a machine that will take their own jobs.
 
Hydrogen fuel cell cars that refuel themselves. They would extract Hydrogen from the water vapor in the air, and pump it into the tank. I have heard of ways to do that without giant generators, but I havent actually seen any proof of them working, but if this could be done it would be great.
 
Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as free energy, there isn't nearly enough water in the air to make that work.
 
kylehnat
Lastly, I'm not sure how keen that team of engineers will be to design a machine that will take their own jobs.

Ok, there's a doctor, a lawyer, and an engineer waiting to be executed by guillotine. The lawyer is first, he walks up, they strap him in, release the cord, the blade comes down and suddenly - right before the lawyer's head is chopped off - the blade stops. The executioner looks at the blade and says "well, it must be an act of God... you're free to go".

Next the doctor stops up. The rope is released and the blade stops just short. "Must be an act of God, you're free to go".

The engineer steps up. The rope is released, and the blade stops short. But just before the executioner can say "you're free to go" the engineer says "I think I see the problem!".
 
Touché, sir.

Part of intelligence is knowing that sometimes, the smartest thing to say is nothing at all :)
 
HHO gas is the next big thing. I think ExxonMobil is going to assasinate all who work on it though until all the oil runs out and they themselves take over with the technology.
 
kylehnat
Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as free energy, there isn't nearly enough water in the air to make that work.

Couldnt they leach it from their own exhaust, like a turbocharger? Anyway, Im not saying it would be quick, but maybe overnight?

And in NY where its always 47% humidity, there probably IS enough water.
 
kylehnat
None of those professions you listed are algorithmic. No matter how good AI gets, it will still be a computer program with defined pathways and limits.

How do you know that? There are several examples of current software that doesn't follow sequential defined pathways, that can react and adjust to their environment. Several programs, such as neural networks, are learning from inputs we give them. Limits are matters of hardware and for the most part, programming techniques, which are still maturing.

Do you want to fly in an airplane that was never touched by humans? How about setting foot in a skyscraper built entirely by robots?

Why not?

I think at first such machines would only serve as assistants, but I don't see any valid reason why they wouldn't be able to do everything better in the end, given enough evolution.

Lastly, I'm not sure how keen that team of engineers will be to design a machine that will take their own jobs.

AI is considered as the holy graal for most programmers, wheter or not this would render our jobs useless.
 
Sakiale
Couldnt they leach it from their own exhaust, like a turbocharger? Anyway, Im not saying it would be quick, but maybe overnight?

And in NY where its always 47% humidity, there probably IS enough water.

It takes more energy to separate the hydrogen out of water than is contained in the hydrogen in the first place. Hydrogen atoms really, really, really WANT to be attached to the oxygen atoms, which is why hydrogen burns so well.

Cosmic, nobody died and put me in charge, but maybe someone who is will notice. I personally am not very fond of your avatar. And if electricity is your next big thing, how did you get on this forum??? :)
 
Carl.
How do you know that? There are several examples of current software that doesn't follow sequential defined pathways, that can react and adjust to their environment.
Adjusting to an environmental change and making a decision are two different things. The robot knows that the ambient temperature is increasing, so it moves to where it is cooler.

A chemical reactor (sorry, but I have to reach into my bag of tricks here :P), is running too hot. There are 14 different ways to cool it. One of these solutions will cause another part of the plant to explode. Another will give cancer to the children playing a mile away. Still another will asphyxiate anyone currently in any of the buildings on site. To a computer, all of these solutions are equivalent and viable. Let's hope it picks the solution that causes beer and hot chicks to fall from the ceiling, right? :) In order for an AI being to make the correct decision with no outside input, it would have to know a whole hell of a lot, and then be able to apply that to any situation that may arise. In essence, the AI would have to be capable of subjective thought. Is this capability possible, do you think? And if it is, would we really want it? At some point, the robot that was designed to perform your job will realize that it is being underpaid, and will demand a raise. Back to square one :D
kylehnat
Do you want to fly in an airplane that was never touched by humans? How about setting foot in a skyscraper built entirely by robots?
Carl.
Okay, let's go with airplanes on this one. The auto-pilot program on commercial airliners is completely capable of flying the plane itself. Software is so good now, the auto-pilot can take off, navigate, and land the plane all by itself. Pilots are not necessary. During your flight, the pilot may do absolutely nothing, but he/she still gets paid. (Side note: most pilots insist on landing the plane themselves every time, to stay in practice should they ever need to do an emergency landing). Now, how many people would have no reservations about getting on a flight that has no pilot? It's just as safe, right? The auto-pilot sees a thunderstorm ahead, so it descends. Oops, it didn't realize there was a mountain there, because somebody didn't program the GPS software just right (humans aren't perfect, you know). Had there been a pilot onboard, they could have over-ridden the computer's decision.

Essentially, we need us to save us from ourselves.

Carl.
AI is considered as the holy grail for most programmers, whether or not this would render our jobs useless.
Fair enough. I've seen those robot dogs playing soccer. It's pretty neat :)
 
Carl.
How do you know that? There are several examples of current software that doesn't follow sequential defined pathways, that can react and adjust to their environment. Several programs, such as neural networks, are learning from inputs we give them.
But the AI is still following progamming pathways to be able to learn? At the end of the day there always has to be a code for the computer to do something. From what I understand, AI that learns is merely AI that can adapt existing code or combine existing code into new strings.
 
kylehnat
Adjusting to an environmental change and making a decision are two different things. The robot knows that the ambient temperature is increasing, so it moves to where it is cooler.

A chemical reactor (sorry, but I have to reach into my bag of tricks here :P), is running too hot. There are 14 different ways to cool it. One of these solutions will cause another part of the plant to explode. Another will give cancer to the children playing a mile away. Still another will asphyxiate anyone currently in any of the buildings on site. To a computer, all of these solutions are equivalent and viable. Let's hope it picks the solution that causes beer and hot chicks to fall from the ceiling, right? :) In order for an AI being to make the correct decision with no outside input, it would have to know a whole hell of a lot, and then be able to apply that to any situation that may arise. In essence, the AI would have to be capable of subjective thought. Is this capability possible, do you think? And if it is, would we really want it? At some point, the robot that was designed to perform your job will realize that it is being underpaid, and will demand a raise. Back to square one :D

I think such a machine could know a whole hell of a lot more than the best speciatlist in any given field, and search through that knowledge much more quicly and accurately than any human could ever do. In your scenario, the choices made are only dependant on what are the goals set for that machine's framework (most likely minimize damage and casualties, in that case).


Okay, let's go with airplanes on this one. The auto-pilot program on commercial airliners is completely capable of flying the plane itself. Software is so good now, the auto-pilot can take off, navigate, and land the plane all by itself. Pilots are not necessary. During your flight, the pilot may do absolutely nothing, but he/she still gets paid. (Side note: most pilots insist on landing the plane themselves every time, to stay in practice should they ever need to do an emergency landing). Now, how many people would have no reservations about getting on a flight that has no pilot? It's just as safe, right? The auto-pilot sees a thunderstorm ahead, so it descends. Oops, it didn't realize there was a mountain there, because somebody didn't program the GPS software just right (humans aren't perfect, you know). Had there been a pilot onboard, they could have over-ridden the computer's decision.

Essentially, we need us to save us from ourselves.

And how many crash stories have we heard that were caused by human error?(as in your story :P). According to that database, 60% of fatal crashes since the 50s were caused by human error (11% weather, 20% mechanical failure and 8% sabotage). Obviously you need to have an autopilot that could detect faulty hardware such as its gps system, and override it.


Fair enough. I've seen those robot dogs playing soccer. It's pretty neat :)

That's cute. I'd follow the ones llike that though.

live4speed
But the AI is still following progamming pathways to be able to learn? At the end of the day there always has to be a code for the computer to do something. From what I understand, AI that learns is merely AI that can adapt existing code or combine existing code into new strings.

Indeed, software I've seen that were modiying themselves are still quite restrictive. Things like robots learning to walk by themselves within a basic framework, learning how to coordinate movements to walk efficiently "from scratch", which is similar to what humans or animals do.
 
All I can say is this is spot on ...just ask my old lady...she's ALWAYS waiting for the next big thing..


gotta go the pot on the head is starting to hurt ...
 
Back