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

Scott Alexander examines a paper suggesting scientific progress is slowing relative to researcher numbers, arguing this trend is expected and potentially 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 (like transistor density, crop yields, and economic productivity) has remained constant or grown linearly, the number of researchers has increased exponentially. Scott argues that this constant progress despite exponential input growth should be our null hypothesis, as the alternative would lead to unrealistic scenarios like immortality or 50% annual GDP growth. He suggests that the 'low-hanging fruit' explanation is most plausible, where easier discoveries are made first, making further progress increasingly difficult. Scott also cautions against trying to 'fix' this trend, noting potential dangers of accelerated scientific progress. Shorter summary