We have, many times, forklifted old technologies to new by having a lengthy transition period where both old and new protocols are supported by new clients, with a separate and removable backward compatibility layer. That can be done again like every other time, with any communication protocol.
The reason it hasn’t been done with things like email, chat, and file sharing protocols is because Big Tech has manipulated the markets and has such outsize control of them that there is no financial incentive to do so. If those protocols are standardized, users of it are not trapped in their garden, so they’re not interested.
Improving upon only the client-side or adding logical layers to existing aging standards can only get you so far. I agree that email is better than it was, but only by the tiniest amount in its 40-odd year existence. I find it to be only better in minor quality of life ways, but still largely used in ways that are not well fit for purpose. If everyone’s shoehorning it to badly do things beyond its abilities, in a sane world, there’d be another technology standard that does it better. The fact that theres not demonstrates that supply and demand has failed, because the supply side has captured the market and does not need to respond to its demand.
Regarding my “telepathy” example, it was just that. I’m not claiming it would replace that specific need, but trying to illustrate how Big Tech has held back, not fostered innovation. The classic definition of AI is a machine that can think and decide with relative autonomy, but modern LLM AIs do not do anything like that, and there is no path between today’s AI and that. The thing we have today is a red herring that makes a user feel like he is getting more work done in the same time, but he is really just doing different work instead. Study after study shows this to be true, as well as appearing to cause psychological damage to the user in the process.
Some new technologies are simply duds destined to the trash bin or novelty uses. Time will tell with LLMs, but this human cost aspect is going to be difficult or impossible to overcome. Few people will willingly use a technology once it becomes widely known that it breaks your brain.
We have, many times, forklifted old technologies to new by having a lengthy transition period where both old and new protocols are supported by new clients, with a separate and removable backward compatibility layer. That can be done again like every other time, with any communication protocol.
The reason it hasn’t been done with things like email, chat, and file sharing protocols is because Big Tech has manipulated the markets and has such outsize control of them that there is no financial incentive to do so. If those protocols are standardized, users of it are not trapped in their garden, so they’re not interested.
Improving upon only the client-side or adding logical layers to existing aging standards can only get you so far. I agree that email is better than it was, but only by the tiniest amount in its 40-odd year existence. I find it to be only better in minor quality of life ways, but still largely used in ways that are not well fit for purpose. If everyone’s shoehorning it to badly do things beyond its abilities, in a sane world, there’d be another technology standard that does it better. The fact that theres not demonstrates that supply and demand has failed, because the supply side has captured the market and does not need to respond to its demand.
Regarding my “telepathy” example, it was just that. I’m not claiming it would replace that specific need, but trying to illustrate how Big Tech has held back, not fostered innovation. The classic definition of AI is a machine that can think and decide with relative autonomy, but modern LLM AIs do not do anything like that, and there is no path between today’s AI and that. The thing we have today is a red herring that makes a user feel like he is getting more work done in the same time, but he is really just doing different work instead. Study after study shows this to be true, as well as appearing to cause psychological damage to the user in the process.
Some new technologies are simply duds destined to the trash bin or novelty uses. Time will tell with LLMs, but this human cost aspect is going to be difficult or impossible to overcome. Few people will willingly use a technology once it becomes widely known that it breaks your brain.