>[!citation] >furyofantares. (2025, August 17). I have a theory about why it's so easy to underestimate long-term progress and overestimate short-term progress. *Hacker News*. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44927398. >![[Index of references.base#citation|no-toolbar]] >[!quote] >I have a theory about why it's so easy to [[Amara's law|underestimate long-term progress and overestimate short-term progress]]. > >Before a technology hits a threshold of "becoming useful", it may have a long history of progress behind it. But that progress is only visible and felt to researchers. In practical terms, there is no progress being made as long as the thing is going from not-useful to still not-useful. > >So then it goes from not-useful to useful-but-bad and it's instantaneous progress. Then as more applications cross the threshold, and as they go from useful-but-bad to useful-but-OK, progress all feels very fast. Even if it's the same speed as before. > >So we overestimate short term progress because we overestimate how fast things are moving when they cross these thresholds. But then as fewer applications cross the threshold, and as things go from OK-to-decent instead of bad-to-OK, that progress feels a bit slowed. And again, it might not be any different in reality, but that's how it feels. So then we underestimate long-term progress because we've extrapolated a slowdown that might not really exist. > >I think it's also why we see a divide where there's lots of people here who are way overhyped on this stuff, and also lots of people here who think it's all totally useless.