In A World That Improves Exponentially, Stop Fixating On Incremental Improvements
We think in terms of numerical scales. We cannot help it. Sizes, speeds, even financial discussions are often anchored by our general understanding of scale. Our numerical system is based upon the number ten.1 This leads to comparisons and milestones based upon a one followed by some zeros. Politicians lament the 1% or “millionaires” or “billionaires.” Scientists who once squinted into “microscopes,”2 now discuss “nanotechnology.”3 And of course, there is the mythical, unicorn-like creature, the “10x” developer.
Jobs
The late Steve Jobs once argued that software was an unusual domain because the dynamic range between the best and worst practitioners was so much larger than other fields. He famously asked how much faster the best Manhattan taxi cab driver would reach the intended destination than an average replacement. He then contrasted this with software development, where the most-skilled developer could produce 100x the output of the average. This inspired him to acquire, inspire, and push these developers to create the unimaginable.4
For decades since, those hiring software engineers have sought the “10x” dev, hoping against hope to fill their job postings with these, the rarest of creatures. Hiring these individuals is perceived as difficult, but worthwhile, even if it requires whiteboards, exam-like gauntlets of algorithmic minutiae, and in the case of FAANG, stratospheric salaries.
Do We Need to Hire 10x Developers?
Attempting to hire exclusively 10x developers implies two assumptions.
First, it assumes that 10x developers are immutable objects, created in their ethereal form. A growth mindset suggests that 10x developers did not enter the world at their current level of skill. In a world where far too many developers lack meaningful, challenging work and have become disenchanted and disinterested as a result, a 3x developer motivated to put forth eight hours of productivity might be comparable to the languishing 10x analog. And moreover, that motivated, engaged 3x developer, after discussion, review, and exposure to talented colleagues, might grow into a 10x developer who also enjoys a day’s work.
Secondly, it anchors us to 10x as the order of magnitude by which software can improve the surrounding world.5 Humans often adopt a reductive view of their own well-being. In terms of our happiness, like other metrics, we think on a scale of 1-10.
Long-term Scaling
The human experience, on the scale of the decades since the industrial revolution, certainly has seen well-being improve by quantities that would challenge any 1-10 scale. Incremental improvements have occurred along the way, but the staggering aggregate of humanity’s collective accomplishment and its continued exponential pace suggest an entirely different notion of scale.
When longtermists begin to grapple with the number of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained as the centuries have unfolded, the gains realized are dizzying by any heuristic chosen.
This has an optimistic implication for certain areas of current research. It speaks to the potential of revolutionizing an experience with a product (or creating a wholly new one altogether) rather than incrementally improving upon one.
BCI - To Restore and Enhance
Current applications of brain computer interfaces (BCI), and other medical technology more broadly, have been restorative. Lost agency in the form of paralyzed limbs can be restored. Lost agency in the form of depression can be ameliorated. But any neurological issue addressed with BCI (or any medical disorder remedied by modern science) can add, at most, one QALY per year. At worst, you could be dead.6
And since the lifespan of human beings seems generally limited ~100 years, there is a maximum impact of medical technology…if the objective is restoration.
But then, there is the potential for enhancement: For human beings to communicate and exchange information in ways previously unimaginable. Information retrieval at the scale of the internet with only curiosity as the catalyst looms in the future of our species. This is, of course, impossible with current technology.
But our species once lived brutish, nasty, and short lives.7 How might a neolithic human assess the value of one, modern, QALY?8 By that logic, long-term potential becomes infinite even before consideration of how life might be extended.
So today, we can only restore, at most, one QALY/yr. We might, however, add 1,000,000 QALY/yr over the centuries to come.
Developers
We could aspire to build world-changing technology by attempting to assemble a team of only 10x (or 100x) developers. But then, has the staggering progress of the species occurred exclusively from the toil of these individuals? Certainly not.
Incredible achievements of technology, medicine, and infrastructure have led to exponentially-accelerating progress for our species, and much of it occurred via the efforts of competent individuals, motivated by a growth mindset, offering an honest day’s labor.
Soon, those individuals and their capacities are enhanced by the very technology they are working to create, a feedback loop to progress.
Let’s avoid fixation on incremental or even 10x improvement. That’s not nearly ambitious enough.
1 Presumably, because we have ten fingers and ten toes. Of course, as Americans we seem rather resistant to that particular idea, but I digress…don’t get me started…
2 “Micro” meaning 0.000001
3 “Nano” meaning 0.000000001
4 He also exhibited several notable character flaws along the way and the descriptions and portrayals are complex at best. He also liked black turtlenecks. So did Elizabeth Holmes. Not sure that matters.
5 With or without an exclusive cadre of 10x developers to pen each line of code.
6 Fine, I suppose you could be subjected to a fate worse than death, like being forced to watch reruns of some ghastly daytime drama on repeat for an eternity whilst stimulants preclude your ever falling asleep. Let’s not fixate on this point.
7 If not solitary, to reference Hobbes
8 What ultimately, added more QALYs in the centuries since, medical improvement in healing wounds or recording, sharing, and processing information?