Scott argues that projects attempting to "solve debate" through argument mapping or similar technologies are fundamentally doomed because real arguments don't work like logical syllogisms, people don't actually want structured debates, and there's no evidence this approach has ever worked. Longer summary

Scott explains why he consistently rejects grant applications for projects aimed at improving online debates through argument mapping or similar technologies. He outlines several fundamental problems: real arguments don't decompose into simple logical premises and conclusions as these tools assume; arguments rarely hinge on simple factual errors or logical fallacies but on different weightings of evidence; these platforms face an impossible bootstrapping problem since people don't actually want structured debates (they want to express opinions and be agreed with); and unlike dating apps, there's no historical precedent for this type of technology working over thousands of years of human argumentation. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that real technological progress is driven by usefulness and profitability, not the coolness factor often seen in futuristic predictions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a certain strain of futurology that predicts impressive but impractical technological advancements. He argues that real technological progress is driven by usefulness and profitability, not coolness. The post begins by listing numerous technological advancements from 1969 to 2014, then transitions to discussing why certain sci-fi predictions haven't materialized. Scott explains that space colonization, undersea domes, and massive arcologies aren't practical or necessary given current circumstances. He concludes that the lack of moon missions since 1969 is due to a lack of compelling incentives, not technological stagnation. Shorter summary