Scott Alexander analyzes a paper suggesting scientific progress is slowing relative to researcher numbers, arguing this trend is expected and possibly beneficial. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a paper by Bloom, Jones, Reenen & Webb (2018) that suggests scientific progress is slowing down relative to the number of researchers. The paper shows that while progress in various fields (e.g., transistor density, crop yields) remains constant, the number of researchers has increased exponentially. Scott argues that this constant progress despite exponential increase in inputs should be our null hypothesis, as expecting proportional increases would lead to unrealistic outcomes. He suggests that the 'low-hanging fruit' explanation is most plausible, where early discoveries were easier to make. Scott also warns against trying to 'fix' this trend, as it could lead to dangerous consequences if scientific progress accelerated too quickly. Shorter summary