josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) (01/04/90)
[reposted from comp.society.futures] In predicting technology trends, look for the most rapid advances in areas where the new technology can be acquired incrementally. Thus, even though marvelous datacom networks are buildable right now, look for big growth in CD-rom first. Data network services will piggyback onto existing phone and cable; by 2000, there may be fiber ISDN everywhere, maybe not. Cellular wristphones will hinge on battery technology, which I'm not up to predicting; a cellular phone/datalink in your paperback-sized pocket computer will be a common option. The keyboard will go the way of the card reader. Voice-and-pointer will be standard; the pointer may be a dataglove or merely a camera pointed at your hand. You have to have something to do with that 100 mips, after all. Software for language comprehension will emerge from a synthesis of spelling and grammar correctors, OCR for scanned text input, and talkwriters. The typical user interface will be the image of a talking head with the comprehension of a dumb and literal-minded eighth-grader. 40% of total processing power will go into speech recognition and 50% into realtime graphics face generation. * BSG's (bullshit generators) will be the spreadsheet of the 90's, * taking outlines, collections of text fragments, previously written * documents, and background databases and producing finished reports. * One will be able to produce ten times the paperwork in the same amount * of time. BSF's (filters), programs that "read" reports and produce * outlines and summary fragments, will also be popular. Robotics will sneak in the back door. House control/entertainment systems will grow, vaccuum cleaners and lawn mowers will begin to operate autonomously, freezer/microwaves will waken you with the tempting aroma of a TV omelet. "The first true fully automatic home" will be announced several times. Robot butlers that greet visitors, take coats, and serve drinks will be feasible (though quite expensive) by the turn of the century, and may catch on in some circles if the fad falls right. * Drug traffickers will realize that automatic weapons can be mounted * on 1995's toy robots, which can be programmed to recognize policemen * with an accuracy of 85%. By the end of the decade, some major strides will have been made in life extension; the obvious ones are mass production by gene-spliced bacteria of the handful of critical proteins that the ageing process curtails the body's production of. As I understand it, this could alleviate many symptoms of ageing and extend lifespan by up to 50%. * Ronald Reagan will be the last president to have appointed anyone * to the Supreme Court. Each medical advance will newly bankrupt the * Social Security System, requiring massive tax increases. Back to computers, I agree with Barry [Shein] that sometime in the 90's the information available in electronic form will catch and exceed that available on paper, but I intend to have a large personal library of data and programs, made possible by constantly improving storage technology. Already in the 80's electronic data storage surpassed paper in compactness and economy. The ability to access and manipulate our "social database" by computer will further accelerate the rate of technological advancement, as will CAD tools for an increasing number of areas and "computer aided X" for an increasing range of X. * Voice, text, and CAD systems will be pointed to both by AI researchers * and their critics as supporting their positions. --JoSH
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/04/90)
[reposted from comp.society.futures]
Well done.
I think keyboards are here to stay, at least for the foreseeable
future. Once learned (and even if badly learned) they are still
efficient communications devices.
Voice &c will augment them just like the mouse has, but voice has two
major drawbacks. First, it's just not accurate even if well
understood, ever play the game "telephone"? There really is a lot of
bit loss due to slurring etc no matter what you do, raw facts get
miscommunicated. Second, and perhaps more importantly, you don't want
offices full of people talking to their computers, it would be chaos
or demand everyone have private offices, not likely.
The virtual reality crowd, as you mention (datagloves etc) should
start to have a big impact in the CAD/CAM and control areas soon (the
dataglove is being developed by NASA, among others, to create virtual
control rooms for the Space Station project.) Nintendo already has a
(primitive) one so that's coming fast and no doubt will find its way
into applications we're not yet even thinking of.
Perhaps we'll start to see some serious entries in the artifical
telepathy arena (barely noticeable devices allowing you to discretely
communicate with others.)
Robotics: I started this list lo so many years ago (about 3) with the
(somewhat humorous) prediction that the first major commercial success
of robotics would be as sex surrogates. I'll leave it at that.
Another important application of robotics waiting to happen is reading
things into computers. Specialized robots crawling about the stacks of
libraries or through office files. Turning pages and scanning is major
work, better to let a robot at it (these won't be terribly
anthropomorphic, of course.)
The common cold will not only still be a nuisance but will have been
found to be critical to good health as it stimulates the immune system
causing it to wipe out all sorts of other nasties in the process,
house cleaning as it were.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzssteve@arc (Steve Savitzky) (01/04/90)
Josh Hall predicted that: > The keyboard will go the way of the card reader. Voice-and-pointer > will be standard; the pointer may be a dataglove or merely a camera > pointed at your hand. You have to have something to do with that > 100 mips, after all. I just have to respond to this. WRONG. Think what it would be like on an airplane with everyone muttering to their pocket computer. Think what office cubicles would be like. Try editing a program over the phone (I've done it). o Voice I/O will be useful only where keyboards and screens are not. Voice will be used by children and other illiterates, and where both hands are needed for something else, as when operating a vehicle or other machinery. o Voice mail will largely be replaced by text-oriented email, not the other way around. o Pocket computers will generally use handwriting recognition on their touch-sensitive screens, rather than voice inputs. o Full-sized keyboards will be a ubiquitous accessory. People will try to "type" using datagloves, but the lack of tactile feedback will make this unsatisfactory in most cases. Deaf people fluent in sign language will have an advantage in cyberspace. Here are a few more random predictions: o Pocket computers will have a full-sized, touch-sensitive screen. They will approximate a smart pad of paper, at which point almost everyone who now carries a notebook around will want one. o The standard lap/desk-top computer will be 8.5x11x.5 inches. The display will go all the way to the edge, so larger displays can be built up by tiling. o Pocket computers + _partially_transparent_ eyephones + locators + cellular networks will permit cyberspace to be overlaid on the real world. This will permit virtual nametags (title bars for people), virtual costumes, virtual street signs, and the like. o High-quality multi-media or hypermedia documents will prove to be as expensive to produce as movies or grand operas. Only a few will be produced before interactive virtual realities make them obsolete. o Virtual realities will become a major form of entertainment. o There will never be a standard representation for hypertext documents. Instead, there will be a standardized library of _access_routines_ that permit _anything_ to be viewed as a collection of object-attribute associations. o Books stored in centralized repositories (e.g. Library of Congress) will be downloaded once and cached locally by each user, so as to avoid repeat access fees and to take advantage of bulk data rates. o The copyright laws will be overhauled, probably more than once. o Attempts will be made to license and/or certify programmers and/or software. At least one will probably succeed. Entertainment software will remain unregulated, with the result that CAD packages, word processors, spreadsheets, and the like will end up being packaged as games. o Attempts will be made to prevent the development of artificial intelligences. Opponents will be in the amusing position of trying to legislate against something they claim is impossible in the first place. -- \ Steve Savitzky \ ADVANsoft Research Corp \ REAL hackers use an AXE! \ steve@arc.UUCP \ 4301 Great America Pkwy \ #include<std_disclaimer.h> \ arc!steve@apple.COM \ Santa Clara, CA 95954 \ 408-727-3357 \__________________________________________________________________________
josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) (01/04/90)
[reposted from comp.society.futures] I predicted earlier that: > The keyboard will go the way of the card reader. Voice-and-pointer > will be standard; ... Steve Savitzky replied: > I just have to respond to this. WRONG. Think what it would be like > on an airplane with everyone muttering to their pocket computer. > Think what office cubicles would be like. Try editing a program over > the phone (I've done it). A better model is looking over the shoulder of a hotshot editor wizard, pointing at the screen occasionally, and telling him what to do. Over the phone, you can't see the screen, and you can't point. Also realize that there will be a whole new generation of verbally- oriented command languages, with idiomatic (and idiosyncratic) contractions for commonly used operations. Imagine sitting on an airplane and having people talking to their neighbors in conversational tones. This is quite common in my experience; the air conditioning and engine noise is louder than the conversational background, and it's still easy to be understood. Telephone operators work in open rooms on consoles much closer together and with fewer partitions than the average programmer; there is not significant crosstalk. Steve continues: > Voice I/O will be useful only where keyboards and screens are not. I didn't intend to imply that voice would preclude a screen. > Voice mail will largely be replaced by text-oriented email, not the > other way around. I agree halfway--mail will be sent as voice, received as text. > Pocket computers will generally use handwriting recognition on their > touch-sensitive screens, rather than voice inputs. I would expect both at once. When trying to get a technical idea across to a person, I talk and draw figures (on blackboard or napkin). Entering text will almost surely be voice; editing may well be by drawing standard proofreaders marks on the screen. ... > The standard lap/desk-top computer will be 8.5x11x.5 inches. The > display will go all the way to the edge, so larger displays can be > built up by tiling. This isn't a technological question, obviously, but I would also expect pocket-sized (3.5"x5+") and computers built into a briefcase (complete with screen-image projector for making sales presentations). > Pocket computers + _partially_transparent_ eyephones + locators + > cellular networks will permit cyberspace to be overlaid on the real > world. This will permit virtual nametags (title bars for people), > virtual costumes, virtual street signs, and the like. One of my fondest hopes, but it won't happen before 2000. There's still too big a technological gap in front of a wearable (eyeglasses weight < 1 oz) display device, and a usable system would require too much integration from too many people at once. By 2000, expect game arcades, high-tech work areas, and so forth to offer local indoor versions with helmet-weight (>1 lb) technology--but nothing on the streets. > High-quality multi-media or hypermedia documents will prove to be as > expensive to produce as movies or grand operas. Only a few will be > produced before interactive virtual realities make them obsolete. Rather, expect them to be produced as commonly as movies, distributed as widely, and be in the same price range. I think hypermedia and VR don't compete head to head. HM is like books and lectures, VR like games and conversation. They complement each other. --JoSH
taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) (01/09/90)
I keep reading/hearing that we're going to have voice input. I really can't believe it though - does anyone actually *want* it? Perhaps it's my natural English reserve :-) but I couldn't bear having to talk to a computer. Answering machines make me freeze. I certainly wouldn't want to do it in public. And can you imagine an office full of computers (like this one) where instead of the gentle clicking and odd beeps from VDUs, the room is full of mumblings, rantings and curses like "no, t-h-E-I-r you stupid *!$%# machine!"..... Give me QWERTY any day! Chris Hayward cdh@praxis.co.uk
madd@world.std.com (jim frost) (01/09/90)
J Storrs Hall earlier wrote: > Cellular wristphones will hinge on battery technology, which I'm not > up to predicting; I will be surprised if we don't see an improvement of more than 1000 times in the next ten years. Current consumer battery technology is terrible (what's the efficiency of a Duracell? EEEEK!). I also expect that costs for this technology will be extravagant for awhile (much as computer technology was until just recently), probably until after the end of the century but not much beyond. > The keyboard will go the way of the card reader. Voice-and-pointer > will be standard; the pointer may be a dataglove or merely a camera > pointed at your hand. This is an interesting idea, but it's not one of those things I expect to happen to the degree that you might think. First, several technologies have to come together (as you said). Second, machine speeds and -- more importantly -- core memories have to increase many times over. I agree with Barry Shein's predictions of about 100mips and 128mb being pretty standard, but 100mips isn't really all that much faster than what you're dealing with today, and 128mb isn't much more than many of the machines I use daily have. That kind of processing power is great for displays, not good enough for voice manipulation without substantial dedicated hardware support. If someone comes out with a nifty voice-processor on card, I will happily eat my words (if printed on biodegradable paper with a generous side order of beers :-). There are other reasons besides technological ones that lead me to believe that voice processing won't doom keyboards even if it becomes that commonplace. How many of you have ever tried doing formatted dictation? What I mean is, try to dictate verbally the layout of a printed document. I've done it, a lot, and it's a LOT harder to do verbally than on a keyboard or piece of paper. Regardless of my pessimism, I can imaging coding with a verbal interface, and I can imagine that I'd like it. Maybe I'll get to see in the next ten years. > You have to have something to do with that 100 mips, after all. "User Interface." Expect something similar to NeWS to show up and become very commonplace in the next ten years. It will be three dimensional and it will be fully extensible. My bet is it'll based on LISP or something very similar (we can now afford the cost of LISP in terms of CPU). It will not be NeWS or Display Postscript as these are very limited in their support for three-dimensional displays. I believe NeWS is an interesting precursor of things to come, though. > By the end of the decade, some major strides will have been made in > life extension Hah! This is a sure bet. Geriatrics is improving so fast that I seriously expect to live a long, long time. Barrying cataclysm, of course. You quote a 50% improvement, but I expect better than that. To long life and a better work environment, jim frost jimf@saber.com
Daniel.Mocsny@UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (01/09/90)
J Storrs Hall writes: > In predicting technology trends, look for the most rapid advances > in areas where the new technology can be acquired incrementally. > Thus, even though marvelous datacom networks are buildable right > now, look for big growth in CD-rom first. Data network services > will piggyback onto existing phone and cable; by 2000, there may > be fiber ISDN everywhere, maybe not. Consider the analogy between personal computers in 1990, and personal automobiles in 1910. Selling an automobile to an interested individual was easy. Selling the corresponding infrastructure to society to make that automobile usable was not. The only way to convince people (acting vicariously through their governments) to build roadways, parking, law enforcement, traffic control, health care for accident victims, etc., was to flood communities with so many automobiles that people had no choice but to cope. Automakers worked hard to create traffic problems, and then worked equally hard to persuade governments to "solve" them. Another important tactic of the auto/steel/rubber/oil cabal was to deliberately sabotage earlier competing technology (e.g., the 50 urban electric light rail systems they bought up and scrapped between 1930--1950). Restructuring society to accommodate new technology is "Social Engineering". Essentially, to develop mass markets for radically new technology, an industry must change the way people live. This is a combination of applying positive and negative pressure on populations to abandon their former habits and adopt new ones. Positive pressure consists of providing a technological advantage. However, such advantages are rarely apparent to consumers before the fact, especially when such advantages depend critically on well-developed mass markets and infrastructure (the famous Chicken-and-Egg problem). E.g., a 1990's vintage high-performance sports car would have been virtually useless in the year 1890, without superhighways, modern petroleum refining, trained service technicians, etc. Building the actual product is only a small part of delivering the full value to the consumer; an equally important component is engineering society to enable the product to function. Thus negative pressure is a legitimate business tactic. As I mentioned above, the automobile industry applied it in two ways: (1) by selling enough automobiles to create traffic congestion on then-inadequate roads, and (2) by directly attacking the competing technologies. Negative pressure tends to backfire, however, so it can only work when the latent demand for the new technology is strong enough. The analogies between the early automobile industry and the early personal computer industry are obvious. The early products fill clear-cut specialized needs, but both require massive Social Engineering to reach their full potential. For automobiles, this meant freeways, parking, educating/persuading consumers, etc. For computers, this means high-speed networks, standards compliance, and reducing legal barriers against the free flow of information. For automobiles, private industry was unable or unwilling to provide most of the infrastructure directly, choosing instead to lobby governments to pay for it out of taxes. Will this tactic be necessary for computers? It is already in place: consider how much value the publicly-funded networks are adding to their subsidized users. Even if the government doesn't pay for infrastructure, it still takes a leading role in the standards process. Sooner or later, the computer industry will wake up to the fact that it is (or should be) competing with personal transportation, just as the auto industry realized it was competing with urban rail. The auto industry required about 30 years before it was strong enough to attack urban rail directly. If the personal computer industry behaves similarly, we should see such tactics appearing somewhere around the years 2000--2010. As telecommuting/teleshopping become increasingly viable, the market for these technologies will benefit from any deterioration in the alternatives. As computer industries saturate their existing markets, look for them to start thinking of ways to undermine the automobile industry. (I can think of plenty, in case anyone is hiring. :-) Consumers spend more on personal transportation than all industries spend to process data; eventually, the computer industries will have to go for that money. > Back to computers, I agree with Barry [Shein] that sometime in the 90's > the information available in electronic form will catch and exceed > that available on paper, Right now, it's at about 2% and 98%, respectively. Information in electronic form has a long, long way to go. One glimmer of hope: most printed information passes through a computer at some point before publication. > Already in the 80's electronic data storage surpassed > paper in compactness and economy. Well now, I'm not so sure that is universally true. If we plot $ (or cubic meters) per megabyte, certainly electronic media give flatter slopes, but their Y-intercepts are higher than for paper. For small amounts of information, paper is still both cheaper (more compact), IF we include the cost (size) of the computer you need to read the electronic media. A consumer can walk into a drugstore and buy a paperback book (~1 MB) for a few dollars. (S)he is already trained to use the book, so the startup cost is zero. If the same consumer wants to read the same information off a floppy disk, (s)he needs a computer that costs at least several hundred dollars (let us ignore for the moment the high cost of a display with resolution matching that of paper). What's worse, if (s)he is not trained to use the computer, then her/his startup cost is very high. If a person needs to process large quantities of information, then electronic media are definitely cheaper. But note that paper has all the incremental advantages initially. This makes it extremely hard to displace. Even most people who use computers heavily still rely on huge amounts of paper. (Note: I do not like paper; I consider paper to measure how the computer industry is not doing its job. I.e., to judge the real usefulness of a computer system, simply note how much printed information surrounds it.) Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) (01/12/90)
Being with the Government, we engage in exercises like this all the time. So we get called in for opinions by other Agencies (some times in the Black) and various companies (computer). So my comments are neither complete nor will I say any inside information. Planning. In predicting trends, you want to be able to deduce and justify your forecasts. The more quantitative, the better. Seek those areas which have refined methods of measurement like electronics and physics. This is why wafer fabrication went so far: controlled fine measurements. Unfortunately, communication is more vague. > The keyboard will go the way of the card reader. Voice-and-pointer > will be standard; the pointer may be a dataglove or merely a camera > pointed at your hand. You have to have something to do with that > 100 mips, after all. I don't quite think so. Neck ties will disappear first. 8) A good question is whether the pocketbook size machine will have a keyboard? Does to make sense to build a device which a human can't easily operate? Yes and no. > Software for language comprehension will emerge from a synthesis of > spelling and grammar correctors, OCR for scanned text input, and > talkwriters. I use an OCR weekly. The AI people predicted this in the 1950s. We are still waiting. Find an OCR and observe all the errors they make, you will get laugh. I do not know if you have ever seen a typewriter without a "One" key "1," you used an "l" "ell" key. Even neural nets won't help, just more of the same. We have to learn to store more/better context. > *Robots recognizing policemen*? I doubt this. An attempt was made at the end of the 1960s in Vietnam to design a technological fence called the McNamera Line. Designed to prevent enemy infiltration from N to S Vietnam. Again the AI recognition problem is a lot harder, and I do not see a solution in 10 years. Can you use AI to tell a good Panamian from a baddie? > .. sometime in the 90's the information available in electronic form > will catch and exceed that available on paper... There is a difference between information and knowledge versus data. But I believe I will have more of both, and a lot of junk as well. My NeXT box shows me this. I have "thrown away" my hardcopy Websters. > * Voice, text, and CAD systems will be pointed to both by AI researchers > * and their critics as supporting their positions. It is time, critically, to establish firm minimum baselines of performance. Vague notions like the "Turing testing" will be moving targets firing at other moving targets (technology). Start with qualitative constraints. Then move quantitative. Beware that things do not scale linearly. If we don't do the above, then when the Emperor walks by with his fine new robes (or Mind, if you have read Penrose recently), then you will clap with the rest of them. I hope by that time, I am still a little boy, "Er excuse me, but ..." Science is about skepticism. --eugene miya