Why does technology keep advancing

What will happen as we combine the virtual assistance with the biotech revolution, mobility, and anthropomorphic robotics? Every revolution produces both positive and negative impact.

This has been true since the invention of the wheel — which was used to transport both food and armies — giving life and taking it. But the opportunities for optimizing our collective health and elevating the human condition are wondrous. We may collect cookies and other personal information from your interaction with our website. For more information on the categories of personal information we collect and the purposes we use them for, please view our Notice at Collection.

Become a Member Sign In. General Newsletters Got a news tip? Free: Join the VentureBeat Community for access to 3 premium posts and unlimited videos per month. Learn More. Sign up with your business e-mail to continue with ticket purchase. VentureBeat VentureBeat's mission is to be a digital town square for technical decision-makers to gain knowledge about transformative technology and transact.

Our site delivers essential information on data technologies and strategies to guide you as you lead your organizations. We live in a world where technology is evolving and advancing faster than we are as humans. I think so. We can only predict.

And predictions show that the development of robotics and artificial intelligence AI will be the most interruptive technological movement since the Industrial Revolution.

So you may think that robotics and AI will only affect the largest, most international industries. Every single commercial sector will indeed experience changes in the near future thanks to advancing technology. So yes, even the most traditional and hands-on farming methods will be affected. From this data, they can gauge how to appeal to your senses so that ultimately, you buy their products or services.

A mere coincidence? I think not. To keep up with the advancing digital trend, humans are creating truly unheard-of technology, such as the uniquely innovative Mico headphones. Their built-in sensor, based on Neuromarketing, can detect brain waves and play music that best suits your current mood.

As our large updated graph here shows, he was not only right about the next ten years but astonishingly the regularity he found is true for more than half a century now. Note the logarithmic vertical axis chosen to show the linearity of the growth rate. The line corresponds to exponential growth with the transistor count doubling every two years.

In the following, I show that technological developments in many respects are growing exponentially. But in and of itself, the doubling of transistors every two years does not directly matter in our lives. Therefore, I ask in which ways the exponential growth of technology matters and will give an overview of how the exponential technological advancement is a driver of technological and social change that very much matters for our lives now.

More importantly for us is that the power and speed of computers increased exponentially; the doubling time of computational capacity for personal computers was 1.

The increasing power of a wider range of computers — starting with the first general purpose computer ENIAC in — is shown in the black and white chart. We also show this series in interactive form, updated to the year Here, the growth of supercomputer power is measured in terms of the number of floating-point operations carried out per second FLOPS by the largest supercomputer in any given year.

FLOPS are a measure of calculations per second for floating-point operations. Floating-point operations are needed for very large or very small real numbers, or computations that require a large dynamic range. It is therefore a more accurate measured than simply instructions per second.

Whilst some technological change follows a continued linear progression, many of the technological innovations we see follow a non-linear pathway. This non-linearity is observed most clearly in examples which show rapid evolution following an important enabling innovation. Below we have included two examples of such trends: the take-off of human flight, and the sequencing of the human genome. This chart shows the global distance record set by non-commercial flights since This record represents the maximum distance a non-commercial powered aircraft has traveled without refueling.

We see that prior to , humans had not yet developed the technology necessary to enable powered flight. This initial innovation sparked continued, rapid progress in modern aviation, with the record distance increasing nearly ,fold from 0. I have a crap sense of direction, so it's no exaggeration to say Google Maps has changed my life. I would pay hundreds of dollars a year for the product. In practice, I pay nothing. In terms of its direct contribution to GDP, Google Maps boosts Google's advertising business by feeding my data back to the company so they can target ads more effectively, and it probably boosts the amount of money I fork over to Verizon for my data plan.

But that's not worth hundreds of dollars to Google, or to the economy as a whole. This, Varian argues, is a systemic problem with the way we measure GDP: It's good at catching value to businesses but bad at catching value to individuals. So it's reasonable to believe household productivity has gone up.

But that's not really measured in our productivity statistics. The gap between what I pay for Google Maps and the value I get from it is called "consumer surplus," and it's Silicon Valley's best defense against the grim story told by the productivity statistics.

The argument is that we've broken our country's productivity statistics because so many of our great new technologies are free or nearly free to the consumer. Depending on the day you check, the stock market routinely certifies Google — excuse me, Alphabet — as the world's most valuable company, but few of us ever cut Larry Page or Sergei Brin a check.

This is what Andreessen means when he says Silicon Valley's innovations are "deflationary in nature": Things like Google Maps are pushing prices down rather than pushing them up, and that's confounding our measurements. The other problem the productivity skeptics bring up are so-called "step changes" — new goods that represent such a massive change in human welfare that trying to account for them by measuring prices and inflation seems borderline ridiculous.

The economist Diane Coyle puts this well. In , she notes, Nathan Mayer Rothschild died from an abscessed tooth. Perhaps, she suggests, we live in an age of step changes — the products we use are getting so much better, so much faster, that the normal ways we try to account for technological improvement are breaking down. This is a challenge to the mismeasurement hypothesis: We've never measured productivity perfectly.

We've always been confounded by consumer surplus and step changes. To explain the missing productivity of recent decades, you have to show that the problem is getting worse — to show the consumer surplus is getting bigger and the step changes more profound. You have to prove that Facebook offers more consumer surplus than cars once did; that measures of inflation tracked the change from outhouses to toilets better than the change from telephones to smartphones.

That turns out to be a very hard case to make. Consider Google Maps again. It's true that using the app is free. But the productivity gains it enables should show in other parts of the economy. If we are getting places faster and more reliably, that should allow us to make more things, have more meetings, make more connections, create more value.

That's how it was for cars and trains — their real value to the economy wasn't simply sales of automobiles or tickets or gasoline, but the way they revolutionized our work and lives. Or take Coyle's point about the step change offered by antibiotics. Is there anything in our recent history that even remotely compares to the medical advances of the 20th century?

Or the sanitation advances of the late 19th century? If so, it's certainly not evident in our longevity data: Life expectancy gains have slowed sharply in the IT era.

A serious appreciation of step changes suggests that our measures of productivity might have missed more in the 20th century than they have in the 21st.

The mismeasurement hypothesis fails more specific tests, too. In January, Chad Syverson, an economist at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, published a paper that is, in the understated language of economics research, a devastating rebuttal to the thesis.

Syverson reasoned that if productivity gains were being systematically distorted in economies dependent on informational technologies, then productivity would look better in countries whose economies were driven by other sectors. Then he moved on to the consumer surplus argument. Perhaps the best way to value the digital age's advances is by trying to put a price on the time we spend using things like Facebook.

Syverson used extremely generous assumptions about the value of our time, and took as a given that we would use online services even if we had to pay for them.

Even then, he found the consumer surplus only fills a third of the productivity gap. And that's before you go back and offer the same generous assumptions to fully capture the value of past innovations, which would widen the gap today's technologies need to close!

There is real value in playing soccer with one's children, of course — it's just not the kind of value economists are looking to measure with productivity statistics. This is a key point, and one worth dwelling on: When economists measure productivity gains, they are measuring the kind of technological advances that power economic gains.

What that suggests is that even if we were mismeasuring productivity, we would see the effects of productivity-enhancing technological change in other measures of economic well-being. You can imagine a world in which wages look flat but workers feel richer because their paychecks are securing them wonders beyond their previous imagination.

In that world, people's perceptions of their economic situation, the state of the broader economy, and the prospects for their children would be rosier than the economic data seemed to justify. That is not the world we live in. According to the Pew Research Center , the last time a majority of Americans rated their own financial condition as "good or excellent" was