1. Blockchains/smart contracts,
2. Garbled circuits/Snarks/MPC (Multi-Party Computation)
3. IO/VBB Program obfuscation,
4. FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption),
5. Machine Learning/Vision,
6. Global/Solar-scale performant and secure routing protocols,
7. TEE (Trusted Execution Environments),
8. Advanced P2P systems like IPFS,
9. Bioinfomatiks.
...
A list of hard problems we could be tackling: 1) the world is going to run out of fossil fuels, 2) we are destroying the human ecosystem by global warming, 3) there exists a very large amount of inequality between the upper and lower class in our society and the gap is only increasing, 4) we have more and more humans of whom society demands "work" to get "pay" in order to survive even as we come up with ways of replacing more and more "jobs" with "automation", 5) there are many subsets of our population divided by axes such as race and sexuality which are discriminated against by others in both direct and indirect systematic ways, 6) we have a limited number of antibiotics that are generally safe for widespread usage and pathogens are adapting, 7) for numerous and potentially diverse reasons an increasingly large fraction of our society is being turned off of science and has stopped believing in basic things like the benefits of even our oldest and most trusted vaccinations, 8) humans continue to die from diseases like cancer, 9) governments and companies have begun to usher in a dystopian era of surveillance under the guise of protecting us from terrorists and spam and serving us advertisements.
A couple of these problems can be addressed with the technologies you listed, but even in the core of some of these communities that want to address problems 5, 7, and 9 you honestly just end up finding a lot of people who are exacerbating problems 2, 3, 4, and (annoyingly) 9.
I despise the cloud :(. It was just so much harder for people to abuse the crap out of us when the concept of a computer was something that, even if it could connect to other computers to get information, was not something that fundamentally relied on other computers and which stored all of its information on other computers and could be remotely controlled by other computers. We are to the point where arguing that I "own" the device on which I am typing this message almost doesn't make sense: I am borrowing it from Apple and I can only hope that they don't screw me too hard :(.
Many of the problems you listed are likely only solvable by large scale social movements. Solutions to important technology problems change the landscape over which progress is made but they are not social movements themselves.
>It was just so much harder for people to abuse the crap out of us when the concept of a computer was something that, even if it could connect to other computers to get information, was not something that fundamentally relied on other computers and which stored all of its information on other computers and could be remotely controlled by other computers.
The cloud is the new word for mainframe. The PC pushed things away from mainframes then the internet/cloud pushed back. Blockchains are interesting space between these extremes.
If anything, we agree on one point: that computers failed to solve those problems, and where we thought they would--Twitter being a great example--they quite arguably made the problem much much worse.
That is why I will argue computers feel so much more depressing today: we have been slowly coming to the realization--not just in the past few years but since at least the 50s (if not the turn of the last century)--that the entire concept of a utopian technofuture is probably a fantasy and dystopias now seem so close that we barely find the idea compelling to talk about anymore.
Not dying should be the first on that list, for obvious reasons, and becoming multi-planetary reduces the chance of (all the) humans dying exponentially for each planet colonized.
Are we even the same species with any of the same concerns by the time we get to Alpha Centauri planet?
These notions still coming from the mouths of my generation are getting a bit bonkers to me as I age.
Let's work towards a goal we'll never be able to validate actually happens, as we'll be dead before we get close. Let's build a system that coerces people towards that goal.
Let's chew up more and more of this planet researching and building towards technologies and fucking over the next gen of humans here.
Because a generation that grew up watching Star Trek wished it would happen real bad!
1. The earth will still be inhabitable in the short run. Even with worst case global warming x10. It will be a lot different, and probably not better, but we can still survive here.
2. 99% of human history people lived without liberties or human rights that became a theme of anti-autocratic philosophies and cultures that grew out of The Enlightenment to make the modern day world possible. Alan Turing would have been tortured to death in earlier years. These last few hundred years may very well be an anamoly, and while we know humans exhibit a tendency towards immoral, autocraric leadership, we should take advantage of the fact we live in the best 0.1% of time in history to develop such technology. It may be that in the short run is the only foreseeable possibile time to become inter-planetary.
3. Competition is what propels human progress
4. Global warming bureaucracies have the same problems the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, and prohibition democracies have. All these problems could be solved by your standard intelligent young adult, but they aren't because of bureaucratic inertia and politics. They are problems of people and human culture of greed.
5. I don't watch Star Trek
While management is cluelessly guiding what software is developed, we'll never put the requisite effort into those problems.
They want return on investment, not idealism.
Bret's talk about their group's vision for computing - https://vimeo.com/115154289 - really helps people who think computing is "done" and all the interesting stuff is figured out.
The sad reality is that most software engineers want to work on these problems, but instead have to work on pumping out CRUD apps and proprietary APIs of questionable social value to pay the bills.
Scion is a clean slate internet architecture research design (including routing)[0].
>It seems like bgpsec is about as good as we are going to get.
I was author on a paper [1] that reduced some of the downsides to the RPKI (the PKI BGPSEC relies on).
There is also interesting work on getting most of the security from BGPSEC without complete BGPSEC deployment [2].
In a different direction, as we build the internet of the inner solar system we will need protocols with different properties than those we needed for terrestrial networks.
[0]: https://www.scion-architecture.net/
[1]: "From the Consent of the Routed: Improving the Transparency of the RPKI" http://cs-people.bu.edu/heilman/sigRPKI_full.pdf
[2]: "Jumpstarting BGP Security with Path-End Validation" http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2934883&dl=ACM&coll=DL&CFI...
Sorry about the rant, but I get the impression that the authors of replacement protocols like these are more interested in becoming academically famous for being the inventor of the Internet (i.e. The next Vincent Cerf) rather than proposing solutions to existing systems.
I would be interested in new protocols for super high latency networks (i.e. The solar system model).
The RPKI work and path end validation work is interesting and I haven't seen those papers before (been disconnected from publications recently). Thanks for the links.
Physics has the same problem. Upwards of 20k people in the APS... most working on very obscure problems spraying "shittonium on silicon 111" or making no progress in various theories of everything.
Still plenty of important and interesting problems in CS, some of which I've been lucky enough to work on.
Blockchain stuff is pretty useful and interesting, though it could all fall apart with some breakthrough in crypto.
Machine learning is mostly used for stupid stuff like getting people to click on ads, but there's lots of interesting use cases for it which haven't been explored yet.
There's also a lot of work to be done on the core tools used in ML; while everyone babbles about deep learning, boosting, PGMs and topological data analysis still have a lot of low hanging fruit IMO.
One that people don't think about enough: non-standard computing architectures. Quantum computing hasn't produced anything of note yet, but it's hardly the only potential area of research here. Simply using stuff like old school Harvard architectures has tremendous implications for security (no more buffer overflows, yo), but nobody bothers thinking these things through and implementing.
That's the problem with foundational research: It always looks obscure and impractical until suddenly there's a huge breakthrough out of nowhere. Same dynamic as with startups, where 99% will never make a significant mark of any kind, while 1% change the world forever. And you cannot know in advance which startup (or which foundational research) falls into which category.
At this point it seems unlikely that a breakthrough in crypto could kill blockchains without killing nearly all of modern cryptography. For instance we can build blockchains which are secure even against quantum computers. We can build blockchains that make no number theoretic assumptions using only secure hash functions. Any technique which can break all techniques we have of inventing hard to solve problems (i.e. cryptography), would have a massive impact on technology.
A breakthrough in crypto that would destroy blockchains is much more likely to be a technology which is significantly better than a blockchain for what we want to do with blockchains. That would also be a exciting result.
> They're standing way up there on the shoulders of those giants, and we should recognize that.
We do. And they do too.
But they are innovating, and bringing down the cost of putting stuff in orbit is very important progress, no point in belittling that.
If you wanted to say that SpaceX had done 'nothing new' then you're about a year late to the party, they are definitely innovating.
(There are more people working on important problems than in the 1980s. Computer science research used to be about a hundred people each at MIT, CMU, and Stanford, with a few smaller groups elsewhere, plus internal efforts at IBM and Bell Labs. The whole field was tiny. Now, it's larger, but overshadowed by the massive level of activity associated with ads.)