Where the bias is in the innovation debate

Robin Hansen made a point (in a debate on AI) that people who are thinking about the progress of innovation should take to heart.

"The literature on economic, technical, and other innovation says most value comes from many small innovations – more useful and wider scope innovations are rarer, and usually require many small supporting innovations."

People who are skeptical that there has been much innovation recently should realize that in many cases they are missing real improvements not because they aren't happening, but because they are occurring in small amounts over many different areas. Sure, they don't have flying cars*, but different processes are being optimized by engineers everyday.  There are people who blindly trust that society will keep innovating, and in some areas the institutions that typically drive innovation might be sufficiently broken that this blind trust is incorrect. However, those who believe that people will keep figuring out ways to make their lives better are more right than wrong.

*Incidentally, many of the people who use "Where are the flying cars that we imagined we'd have in the future?" as a rhetorical point about innovation in our society would also be quick to dismiss flying cars as a true technological innovation if they were actually common. After all, as the rhetoric goes, they aren't a new technology, just a combination of two existing technologies that have been around for a long time.
2 responses
I don't know if people skeptical re: innovation are missing them b/c they are occurring in small amounts over many different areas. In a developed and competitive economy where people specialize, big changes may be hard to come by. Lots of little changes don't necessarily add up to one big change; sometimes they're just lots of little changes. A new invention is one generally on the margin, or that's at least what the stagnation people argue. Few big changes appear to have been made in daily life outside of the internet. We haven't redesigned the household, or changed transportation, or developed usable jet-packs, etc. It's a fascinating topic that gets convoluted by the fact that we are a developed nation, not a developing one. Technology is less obvious in the former.
But it's not "just the internet." It's lots of things that people who want to sound the innovation alarm group together under one heading to make it sound like not much has changed. More often, they are upset that they didn't get the future that the scifi of the 50's and 60's promised them.

Sure, people being able to access a large portion of the information in the world and interact with each other can be grouped into one category, but it is still missing a lot.

The massive amount of intelligence being crowd sourced is important enough to be seen as a separate innovation that is massively changing the world.

Companies have gained the ability to manage their internal affairs much more efficiently.

Video games have grown into a significant industry separate from but existing alongside the internet.

Handheld computing devices with access to the internet, motion sensors and GPS are actually a very important shift. They create a ridiculous amount of utility and open up many new economic possibilities.

There are lots of issues with innovation in traditional education, medicine and government. This is important because they are a growing part of the economy. Innovation in commodity extraction needs to keep pace not only with economic demand but also with material depletion so it looks like it is falling behind, but not for lack of innovation. But outside of those areas, things are looking pretty good.