The Big Cull: Goodbye, Type A People Who Make the Government Chug Along
March 3, 2025
The work of a real, live dinobaby. Sorry, no smart software involved. Whuff, whuff. That’s the sound of my swishing dino tail. Whuff.
I used to work at a couple of big time consulting firms in Washington, DC. Both were populated with the Googlers of that time. The blue chip consulting firm boasted a wider range of experts than the nuclear consulting outfit. There were some lessons I learned beginning with my first day on the job in the early 1970s. Here are three:
- Most of the Federal government operates because of big time consulting firms which do “work” and show up for meetings with government professionals
- Government professionals manage big time consulting firms’ projects with much of the work day associated with these projects and assorted fire drills related to non consulting firm work
- Government workers support, provide input, and take credit or avoid blame for work involving big time consulting firms. These individuals are involved in undertaking tasks not assigned to consulting firms and doing the necessary administrative and support work for big time consulting firm projects.
A big time consulting professional has learned that her $2.5 billion project has been cancelled. The contract workers are now coming toward her, and they are a bit agitated because they have been terminated. Thanks, OpenAI. Too bad about your being “out of GPUs.” Planning is sometimes helpful.
There were some other things I learned in 1972, but these three insights appear to have had sticking power. Whenever I interacted with the US federal government, I kept the rules in mind and followed them for a number of not-do-important projects.
This brings me to the article in what is now called Nextgov FCW. I think “FCW” means or meant Federal Computer Week. The story which I received from a colleague who pays a heck of a lot more attention to the federal government than I do caught my attention.
[Note: This article’s link was sometimes working and sometimes not working. If you 404, you will have do do some old fashioned research.] “Trump Administration Asks Agencies to Cull Consultants” says:
The acting head of the General Services Administration, Stephen Ehikian, asked “agency senior procurement executive[s]” to review their consulting contracts with the 10 companies the administration deemed the highest paid using procurement data — Deloitte, Accenture Federal Services, Booz Allen Hamilton, General Dynamics, Leidos, Guidehouse, Hill Mission Technologies Corp., Science Applications International Corporation, CGI Federal and International Business Machines Corporation — in a memo dated Feb. 26 obtained by Nextgov/FCW. Those 10 companies “are set to receive over $65 billion in fees in 2025 and future years,” Ehikian wrote. “This needs to, and must, change,” he added in bold.
Mr. Ehikian’s GSA biography states:
Stephen Ehikian currently serves as Acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator of the General Services Administration. Stephen is a serial entrepreneur in the software industry who has successfully built and sold two companies focused on sales and customer service to Salesforce (Airkit.ai in 2023 and RelateIQ in 2014). He most recently served as Vice President of AI Products and has a strong record of identifying next-generation technology. He is committed to accelerating the adoption of technology throughout government, driving maximum efficiency in government procurement for the benefit of all taxpayers, and will be working closely with the DOGE team to do so. Stephen graduated from Yale University with a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and Economics and earned an MBA from Stanford University.
The firms identified in the passage from Nextgov would have viewed a person with Mr. Ehikian’s credentials as a potential candidate for a job. In the 1970s, an individuals with prior business experience and an MBA would have been added as an associate and assigned to project teams. He would have attended one of the big time consulting firms’ “charm schools.” The idea at the firm which employed me was that each big time consulting firm had a certain way of presenting information, codes of conduct, rules of engagement with prospects and clients, and even the way to dress.
Today I am not sure what a managing partner would assign a person like Mr. Ehikian to undertake. My initial thought is that I am a dinobaby and don’t have a clue about how one of the big time firms in the passage listing companies with multi billions of US government contracts operates. I don’t think too much would change because at the firm where I labored for a number of years much of the methodology was nailed down by 1920 and persisted for 50 years when I arrived. Now 50 years from the date of my arrival, I would be dollars to donuts that the procedures, the systems, and the methods were quite similar. If a procedure works, why change it dramatically. Incremental improvements will get the contract signed. The big time consulting firms have a culture and acculturation is important to these firms’ success.
The cited Nextgov article reports:
The notice comes alongside a new executive order directing agencies to build centralized tech to record all payments issued through contracts and grants, along with justification for those payments. Agency leaders were also told to review all grants and contracts within 30 days and terminate or modify them to reduce spending under that executive order.
This project to “build centralized technology to record all payments issued through contracts and grants” is exactly the type of work that some of the big time consulting firms identified can do. I know that some government entities have the expertise to create this type of system. However, given the time windows, the different departments and cross departmental activities, and the accounting and database hoops that must be navigated, the order to “build centralized technology to record all payments” is a very big job. (That’s why big time consulting firms exist. The US federal government has not developed the pools of expensive and specialized talent to do some big jobs.) I have worked on not-too-important jobs, and I found that just do it was easier said than done.
Several observations:
- I am delighted that I am no longer working at either of the big time consulting firms which used to employ me. At age 80, I don’t have the stamina to participate in the intense, contentious, what are we going to do meetings that are going to ruin many consulting firms’ weekends.
- I am not sure what will happen when the consulting firms’ employees and contractors’ just stop work. Typically, when there is not billing, people are terminated. Bang. Yes, just like that. Maybe today’s work world is a kinder and gentler place, but I am not sure about that.
- The impact on citizens and other firms dependent on the big time consulting firms’ projects is likely to chug along with not much visible change. Then just like the banking outages today (February 28, 2024) in the UK, systems and services will begin to exhibit issues. Some may just outright fail without the ministrations of consulting firm personnel.
- Figuring out which project is mission critical and which is not may be more difficult than replacing a broken MacBook Pro at the Apple Store in the old Carnegie Library Building on K Street. Decisions like these were typical of the projects that big time consulting firms were set up to handle with aplomb. A mistake may take months to surface. If several pop up in one week, excitement will ensue. That thinking for the future is what big time consulting firms do as part of their work. Pulling a plug on an overheating iron in a DC hotel is easy. Pulling a plug on a consulting firm is different for many reasons.
Net net: The next few months will be interesting. I have my eye on the big time consulting firms. I am also watching how the IRS and Social Security System computer infrastructure works. I want to know but no longer will be able to get the information about the management of devices in the arsenal not too far from a famous New Jersey golf course. I wonder about the support of certain military equipment outside the US. I am doing a lot of wondering.
That is fine for me. I am a dinobaby. For others in the big time consulting game and the US government professionals who are involved with these service firms’ contracts, life is a bit more interesting.
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2025
Dear New York Times, Your Online System Does Not Work
March 3, 2025
The work of a real, live dinobaby. Sorry, no smart software involved. Whuff, whuff. That’s the sound of my swishing dino tail. Whuff.
I gave up on the print edition to the New York Times because the delivery was terrible. I did not buy the online version because I could get individual articles via the local library. I received a somewhat desperate email last week. The message was, “Subscribe for $4 per month for two years.” I thought, “Yeah, okay. How bad could it be?”
Let me tell you it was bad, very bad.
I signed up, spit out my credit card and received this in my email:
The subscription was confirmed on February 26, 2025. I tried to log in on the 27th. The system said, “Click here to receive an access code.” I did. In fact I did the click for the code three times. No code on the 27th.
Today is the 28th. I tried again. I entered my email and saw the click here for the access code. No code. I clicked four times. No code sent.
Dispirited, I called the customer service number. I spoke to two people. Both professionals told me they were sending the codes to my email. No codes arrived.
Guess what? I gave up and cancelled my subscription. I learned that I had to pay $4 for the privilege of being told my email was not working.
That was baloney. How do I know? Look at this screenshot:
The estimable newspaper was able to send me a notice that I cancelled.
How screwed up is the New York Times’ customer service? Answer: A lot. Two different support professionals told me I was not logged into my email. Therefore, I was not receiving the codes.
How screwed up are the computer systems at the New York Times? Answer: A lot, no, a whole lot.
I don’t think anyone at the New York Times knows about this issue. I don’t think anyone cares. I wonder how many people like me tried to buy a subscription and found that cancellation was the only viable option to escape automated billing for a service the buyer could not access.
Is this intentional cyber fraud? Probably not. I think it is indicative of poor management, cost cutting, and information technology that is just good enough. By the way, how can you send to my email a confirmation and a cancellation and NOT send me the access code? Answer: Ineptitude in action.
Well, hasta la vista.
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2025
The EU Rains on the US Cloud Parade
March 3, 2025
At least one European has caught on. Dutch blogger Bert Hubert is sounding the alarm to his fellow Europeans in the post, "It Is No Longer Safe to Move Our Governments and Societies to US Clouds." Governments and organizations across Europe have been transitioning systems to American cloud providers for reasons of cost and ease of use. Hubert implores them to prioritize security instead. He writes:
"We now have the bizarre situation that anyone with any sense can see that America is no longer a reliable partner, and that the entire large-scale US business world bows to Trump’s dictatorial will, but we STILL are doing everything we can to transfer entire governments and most of our own businesses to their clouds. Not only is it scary to have all your data available to US spying, it is also a huge risk for your business/government continuity. From now on, all our business processes can be brought to a halt with the push of a button in the US. And not only will everything then stop, will we ever get our data back? Or are we being held hostage? This is not a theoretical scenario, something like this has already happened."
US firms have been wildly successful in building reliance on their products around the world. So much so, we are told, that some officials would rather deny reality than switch to alternative systems. The post states:
"’Negotiating with reality’ is for example the letter three Dutch government ministers sent last week. Is it wise to report every applicant to your secret service directly to Google, just to get some statistics? The answer the government sent: even if we do that, we don’t, because ‘Google cannot see the IP address‘. This is complete nonsense of course, but it’s the kind of thing you tell yourself (or let others tell you) when you don’t want to face reality (or can’t)."
Though Hubert does not especially like Microsoft tools, for example, he admits Europeans are accustomed to them and have "become quite good at using them." But that is not enough reason to leave data vulnerable to "King Trump," he writes. Other options exist, even if they may require a bit of effort to implement. Security or convenience: pick one.
Cynthia Murrell, March 3, 2025
AI Summaries Get News Wrong
February 28, 2025
With big news stories emerging at a frantic pace, one might turn to AI to consolidate the key points. If so, one might become woefully ill informed. “AI Chatbots Unable to Accurately Summarise News, BBC Finds.” The BBC tested the biggest AIs on content from its own site–OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot, Google’s Gemini and Perplexity AI all sat for the exam. None of them passed it, though ChatGPT and Perplexity were less bad than Copilot and Gemini. Tech reporter Imran Rahman-Jones tells us:
“In the study, the BBC asked ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini and Perplexity to summarise 100 news stories and rated each answer. It got journalists who were relevant experts in the subject of the article to rate the quality of answers from the AI assistants. It found 51% of all AI answers to questions about the news were judged to have significant issues of some form. Additionally, 19% of AI answers which cited BBC content introduced factual errors, such as incorrect factual statements, numbers and dates.”
But it was not just about mixing up, or inventing, facts. The chatbots also struggled with the concept of context and the distinction between facts and opinions. We learn:
“The report said that as well as containing factual inaccuracies, the chatbots ‘struggled to differentiate between opinion and fact, editorialised, and often failed to include essential context’.”
To illustrate the findings, the article gives us a few examples:
- “Gemini incorrectly said the NHS did not recommend vaping as an aid to quit smoking.
- ChatGPT and Copilot said Rishi Sunak and Nicola Sturgeon were still in office even after they had left.
- Perplexity misquoted BBC News in a story about the Middle East, saying Iran initially showed ‘restraint’ and described Israel’s actions as ‘aggressive’.”
So, dear readers, we suggest you take the time to read the news for yourselves. Or, at the very least, get your recaps from another human.
Cynthia Murrell, February 28, 2025
Curricula Ideas That Will Go Nowhere Fast
February 28, 2025
No smart software. Just a dinobaby doing his thing.
I read “Stuff You Should Have Been Taught in College But Weren’t” reveals a young person who has some dinobaby notions. Good for Casey Handmer, PhD. Despite his brush with Hyperloop, he has retained an ability to think clearly about education. Caltech and the JPL have shielded him from some intellectual cubby holes.
So why am I mentioning the “Stuff You Should Have…” essay and the author? I found the write up in line with thoughts my colleagues and I have shared. Let me highlight a few of Dr. Handmer’s “Should haves” despite my dislike for “woulda coulda shoulda” as a mental bookshelf.
The write up says:
in the sorts of jobs you want to have, no-one should have to spell anything out for you.
I want to point out that the essay may not be appropriate for a person who seeks a job washing dishes at the El Nopal restaurant on Goose Creek Road. The observation strikes me as appropriate for an individual who seeks employment at a high-performing organization or an aspiring “performant” outfit. (I love the coinage “performant”; it is very with it.
What are other dinobaby-in-the-making observations in the write up. I have rephrased some of the comments, and I urge you to read the original essay. Here’s goes:
- Do something tangible to demonstrate your competence. Doom scrolling and watching TikTok-type videos may not do the job.
- Offer proof you deliver value in whatever you do. I am referring to “good” actors, not “bad” actors selling Telegram and WhatsApp hacking services on the Dark Web. “Proof” is verifiable facts, a reference from an individual of repute, or demonstrating a bit of software posted on GitHub or licensed from you.
- Watch, learn, and act in a way that benefits the organization, your colleagues, and your manager.
- Change jobs to grow and demonstrate your capabilities.
- Suck it up, buttercup. Life is a series of challenges. Meet them. Deliver value.
I want to acknowledge that not all dinobabies exhibit these traits as they toddle toward the holding tank for the soon-to-be-dead. However, for an individual who wants to contribute and grow, the ideas in this essay are good ones to consider and then implement.
I do have several observations:
- The percentage of a cohort who can consistently do and deliver is very small. Excellence is not for everyone. This has significant career implications unless you have a lot of money, family connections, or a Hollywood glow.
- Most of the young people with whom I interact say they have these or similar qualities. Then their own actions prove they don’t. Here’s an example: I met a business school dean. I offered to share some ideas relevant to the job market. I gave him my card because he forgot his cards. He never emailed me. I contacted him and said politely, “What’s up?” He double talked and wanted to meet up in the spring. What’s that tell me about this person’s work ethic? Answer: Loser.
- Universities and other formal training programs struggle even when the course material and teacher is on point. The “problem” begins before the student shows up in class. The impact of family stress on a person creates a hot house of sorts. What grows in the hortorium? Species with an inability to concentrate, a pollen that cannot connect with an ovule, and a baked in confusion of “I will do it” and “doing it.”
Net net: This dinobaby is happy to say that Dr. Handmer will make a very good dinobaby some day.
Stephen E Arnold, February 28, 2025
Has Amazon Hit the Same Big Pothole As Apple?
February 27, 2025
This blog post is the work of a real-live dinobaby. No smart software involved.
Apple has experienced some growing pains with its Apple Intelligence. Incorrect news and assorted Siri weirdness indicated that designing a rectangle and laptop requires different skills from delivering a high impact, mass market smart software “solution.”
I know Apple is working overtime to come up with the next big thing. Will it be another me-too product? Probably. I liked the M1 chip, but subsequent generations have not done much to change my work flow or my happiness with my laptops and Mac Minis. I am okay with a cheap smart watch. I am okay with an old iPhone. I am okay with providing those who do work for me with a Mac laptop. Apple, however, is not a big player in smart software. In China, the company is embracing Chinese smart software. Hey, Apple wants to sell iPhones. Do what’s necessary is the basic approach to innovation in my opinion.
Has Amazon hit the same pothole as Apple? Surely the Bezos bulldozer can move forward with its powerful innovation machine. I am not so sure. I remember four years ago a project requiring my team to look at Amazon’s Sagemaker. That was an initiative to provide off-the-shelf technology and data sets to Amazon cloud customers who wanted smart software. Have you perceived Sagemaker as the big dog in AI? I don’t.
I read “Looks Like the Next-0Gen Alexa’s Release Is Hitting Another Speed Bump.” The write up suggests that the expensive kitchen timer and weather update device is not getting much smarter quickly. The article reports:
According to a tip from an unnamed Amazon employee, shared by the Washington Post (via Android Authority), the smarter Alexa update won’t be released until March 31. The holdup was apparently due to the upgraded assistant tripping over itself in testing, struggling to nail accurate answers. So, it seems like Amazon is taking extra time to fine-tune Alexa’s brain before letting it loose.
I am not too surprised. Amazon fiddles with the Kindle and the software for that device does not meet the needs of people who read numerous books. (Don’t you love those Amazon Kindle email addresses and the software that makes it a challenge to figure out which books are on the device, which are for sale, and which are in the Amazon cloud? Wonderful software for someone who does not read, just buys books.) The cloud AI initiative has not come close to the Chinese technological “strike” with the Deepseek system. Now the kitchen timer is delayed just like useful Apple Intelligence.
Let me share my hypotheses about why Amazon and I suppose I can include Apple in this mental human hallucination:
- Neither company has a next big thing. Both companies are in a me-too, me-too loop. That’s a common situation in a firm which gets big, has money, and loses its genius for everything except making as much money as possible. Innovation atrophy is my phrase for this characteristic of some companies.
- Throwing money at a problem does not create sparks of insight. The novel ideas are smothered under the flow of money that must be spent. This is a middle manager’s problem; specifically, effort is directed to spending the money, not coming up with a big idea that solves a problem and delights those people. Do you know what’s different about a new iPhone? Do you know which Amazon products are actually of good quality? I sure don’t. I ordered an AMD Ryzen CPU. Amazon shipped me red panties. My old iPhone asks me to log in every time I look at Telegram’s messages on the device. Really, panties and persistent log ins?
- General strategic drift. I am not sure what business Apple is in? Is it services like selling music? Is it hardware which is mostly indistinguishable from the hardware just replaced? Is Amazon a cloud computing outfit with leaky S3 storage constructs? Is it a seller of Temu-type products? Is it a delivery business unable to keep its delivery partners happy? The purpose of these firms is to acquire money. Period. The original Jobs and Bezos “razzmatazz” is gone.
Will the companies remediate the fundamental innovation issue? Nope. But both will make a lot of money. Beavers do what beavers do. No matter what. But beavers might be able to get Alexa to spin money, games to mostly work, and Twitch to make creators happy, not grumpy.
Stephen E Arnold, February 27, 2025
Yikes! Existing AI is Fundamentally Flawed
February 27, 2025
AI applications are barreling full steam ahead into all corners of our lives. Yet there are serious concerns about the very structure of how LLMs work. The BCS Chartered Institute for IT asks, "Does Current AI Represent a Dead End?" Cybersecurity professor Eerke Boiten writes:
"From the perspective of software engineering, current AI systems are unmanageable, and as a consequence their use in serious contexts is irresponsible. For foundational reasons (rather than any temporary technology deficit), the tools we have to manage complexity and scale are just not applicable. By ‘software engineering’, I mean developing software to align with the principle that impactful software systems need to be trustworthy, which implies their development needs to be managed, transparent and accountable … When I last gave talks about AI ethics, around 2018, my sense was that AI development was taking place alongside the abandonment of responsibility in two dimensions. Firstly, and following on from what was already happening in ‘big data’, the world stopped caring about where AI got its data — fitting in nicely with ‘surveillance capitalism. And secondly, contrary to what professional organisations like BCS and ACM had been preaching for years, the outcomes of AI algorithms were no longer viewed as the responsibility of their designers — or anybody, really."
Yes, that is the reality we are careening into. But for big tech, that may be a feature, not a bug. Those firms clearly want today’s AI to be THE one true AI. A high profit to responsibility ratio suits them just fine.
Boiten describes, in a nutshell, how neural networks function. He emphasizes the disturbing lack of human guidance. And understanding. Since engineers cannot know just how an algorithm comes to its conclusions, it is impossible to ensure they are operating to specifications. These problems cannot be resolved with hard work and insights; they are baked in. See the write-up for more details.
If engineers are willing to progress beyond today’s LLMs, Boiten suggests, they could develop something actually reliable. It could even be built on existing AI tech, so all that work (and funding) need not go out the window. They just have to look past the dollar signs in their eyes and press ahead to a safer and more reliable product. The post warns:
"In my mind, all this puts even state-of-the-art current AI systems in a position where professional responsibility dictates the avoidance of them in any serious application. When all its techniques are based on testing, AI safety is an intellectually dishonest enterprise."
Now all we need is for big tech to do the right thing.
Cynthia Murrell, February 27, 2025
A Handy Resource: 100 AI Tools in 10 Categories
February 27, 2025
We hear a lot about the most prominent AI tools like ChatGPT, Dall-E, and Grammarly. But there are many more options designed for a wide range of tasks. Inspiration blogger Ayo-Ibidapo has rounded up "100 AI Toos for Every Need: The Ultimate List." He succinctly introduces his list by observing:
"AI is revolutionizing industries, making tasks easier, faster, and more efficient. Whether you need AI for writing, design, marketing, coding, or personal productivity, there’s a tool for you. Here’s a list of 100 AI tools categorized by their purpose."
The 10 categories include those above and more, including my favorite, "Miscellaneous and Fun." As a life-long gamer, I am drawn to AI Dungeon. I am not so sure about the face-swapping tool, Reface AI. Seems a bit creepy. I am curious whether any of the investing tools, like Alpaca, Kavout, or Trade Ideas could actually boost one’s portfolio. And I am pleased to see the esteemed Wolfram Alpha made the list in the education and research section. As for the ten entries under healthcare and wellness, I wonder: are we resigned to sharing our most intimate details with bots? Ginger AI, for mental health support, sounds non-threatening, but are there any data-grubbing details buried in its terms of service agreement?
See the post for all 100 tools. If that is not enough, check out the discussion at Battle Station, "Uncover 30,000+ AI Apps Using AITrendyTools." There’s an idea—what better to pick an AI tool than an AI tool?
Cynthia Murrell, February 27, 2025
Meta and Torrents: True, False, or Rationalization?
February 26, 2025
AIs gobble datasets for training. It is another fact that many LLMs and datasets contain biased information, are incomplete, or plain stink. One ethical but cumbersome way to train algorithms would be to notify people that their data, creative content, or other information will be used to train AI. Offering to pay for the right to use the data would be a useful step some argue.
Will this happen? Obviously not.
Why?
Because it’s sometimes easier to take instead of asking. According to Toms Hardware, “Meta Staff Torrented Nearly 82TB Of Pirated Books For AI Training-Court Records Reveal Copyright Violations.” The article explains that Meta pirated 81.7 TB of books from the shadow libraries Anna’s Archive, Z-Library, and LibGen. These books were then used to train AI models. Meta is now facing a class action lawsuit about using content from the shadow libraries.
The allegations arise from Meta employees’ written communications. Some of these messages provide insight into employees’ concern about tapping pirated materials. The employees were getting frown lines, but then some staffers’ views rotated when they concluded smart software helped people access information.
Here’s a passage from the cited article I found interesting:
“Then, in January 2023, Mark Zuckerberg himself attended a meeting where he said, “We need to move this stuff forward… we need to find a way to unblock all this.” Some three months later, a Meta employee sent a message to another one saying they were concerned about Meta IP addresses being used “to load through pirate content.” They also added, “torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn’t feel right,” followed by laughing out loud emoji. Aside from those messages, documents also revealed that the company took steps so that its infrastructure wasn’t used in these downloading and seeding operations so that the activity wouldn’t be traced back to Meta. The court documents say that this constitutes evidence of Meta’s unlawful activity, which seems like it’s taking deliberate steps to circumvent copyright laws.”
If true, the approach smacks of that suave Silicon Valley style. If false, my faith in a yacht owner with gold chains might be restored.
Whitney Grace, February 26, 2025
Innovation: It Ebbs, It Flows, It Fizzles
February 26, 2025
Many would argue humanity is nothing if not creative. If not, we would be living the way we were thousands of years ago. But, asks the Financial Times, "Is Innovation Slowing Down? With Matt Clancy." Nah—Look how innovative iPhones and Windows upgrades are.
The post presents the audio of an interview between journalist John Burn-Murdoch and economist Matt Clancy. (The transcript can be found here.) The page introduces the interview:
"Productivity growth in the developed world has been on a downward trend since the 1960s. Meanwhile, gains in life expectancy have also slowed. And yet the number of dollars and researchers dedicated to R&D grows every year. In today’s episode, the FT’s Chief Data Reporter, John Burn-Murdoch, asks whether western culture has lost its previous focus on human progress and become too risk-averse, or whether the problem is simply that the low-hanging fruit of scientific research has already been plucked. He does so in conversation with innovation economist Matt Clancy, who is the author of the New Things Under the Sun blog, and a research fellow at Open Philanthropy, a non-profit foundation based in San Francisco that provides research grants."
The pair begin by recalling a theory of economic historian Joel Mokyr, who believes a growing belief in human progress and experimentation led to the Industrial Revolution. The perspective, believes Clancy, is supported by a 2023 study that examined thousands of political and scientific books from the 1500s–1700s. That research shows a growing interest in progress during that period. Sounds plausible.
But now, we learn, innovation appears to be in decline. Research output per scientist has decreased since 1960, despite increased funding. Productivity growth and technological output are also slowing. Is this because our culture has grown less interested in invention? To hear Clancy tell it, probably not. A more likely suspect is what economist Ben Jones dubbed the Burden of Knowledge. Basically, as humanity makes discoveries that build on each other, each human scientist has more to learn before they can contribute new ideas. This also means more individual specialization and more teamwork. Of course, adding meetings to the mix slows everything down.
The economist has suggestions, like funding models that reward risk-taking. He also believes artificial intelligence will significantly speed things up. Probably—but will it send us careening down the wrong paths? AI will have to get far better at not making mistakes, or making stuff up, before we should trust it at the helm of human progress.
Cynthia Murrell, February 26, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
