Three Big Ideas #6
Air-con innovation, white space, and a country of geniuses in a datacenter
Welcome to our weekly Three Big Ideas roundup, in which we serve up a curated selection of ideas (and our takes on them) in entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology, handpicked by the team.
❄️ Eamonn Ives, Research Director
It’s about this time of the year that British people enter into a ritual debate – “have you turned on your heating yet?” And though some may tut at those who crack early, nobody in their right mind would expect someone to go without artificial warmth full stop.
So I’ve always wondered why this logic doesn’t apply to air conditioning for keeping homes cool when it’s too hot. And it seems I’m not alone. In a recent blog, the always reliable environmental economist Hannah Ritchie explains in great detail the health impacts of a changing climate. She concludes by saying: “If you’re looking for a challenge to work on over the next decade, innovating on better air conditioning technologies that are cheaper and more efficient, would be very high-impact. Billions of people who would benefit hugely from air conditioning currently can’t afford it.”
I am sure there’s an entrepreneur or two who’s working on this. But if we think they could benefit from an extra helping hand, maybe we can learn from the policies of the not too distant past about how to stimulate more innovation?
🌠 Anastasia Bektimirova, Researcher
I spent last Thursday in the increasingly exciting White City Innovation District, attending the inaugural conference for Imperial’s Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance. The event focused on the many flavours industrial strategies come in, with learnings from the US, Singapore and Sweden, along with deep-dives into sectors where the UK could build a competitive edge, from aerospace and tidal power to biopharma and fine chemicals.
One recurring point was if and how much room industrial strategy should allow for “white space” when it comes to science and technology. When discussing Industry Transformation Maps for 23 sectors developed as part of Singapore’s industrial policy, Arnoud De Meyer, Emeritus Professor and former President at Singapore Management University, mentioned that officials did wonder how to tackle the need for “white space”, and if they should invest in the 24th sector that is not there yet. The same question was put to a panel of present and former MPs. Chi Onwurah, Chair of the Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, said that “the challenge for industrial strategy is the sectors of the future”, and that “there is the need for a vision for the evolution of sectors”.
The same question occupies the finest minds at DSIT at the moment. Yesterday, Science Minister Sir Patrick Vallance told the Lords Science and Technology Committee that protecting and growing the basic curiosity-driven science is one of his five priorities. He stressed the importance of:
“...understanding what percentage of total spend on curiosity-driven research we want to have as a country that is a knowledge-based economy and being explicit about it. That’s where we need to get to for the Spending Review 2025, and try to be much clearer about it. Because it gives the research councils the ability to understand where they can do things a bit differently and take risks on very early research, which might have no obvious application.”
Those who might find the need for “white space” hard to justify shouldn’t forget that many sectoral niches underpinning today’s industrial strategies in different parts of the world were once a product of curiosity-driven research themselves, or, as Sir Vallance puts it, “that is the work that ultimately is the goose that lays the golden eggs that in years to come creates all the economic and societal benefits”. It’s a strategic investment. Today’s oversight might become tomorrow’s missed fortune.
🧠 Philip Salter, Founder
While patriotic Brits might want to focus on the common nationality of Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis, of wider import to humanity is that the latest Nobel prizes in physics and chemistry went to AI researchers. This surely won’t be the last time. Soon it might become the only option. At some point in the future, it may become redundant to give humans prizes altogether.
Dario Amodei, Co-Founder and CEO of AI giant Anthropic has written an essay on how AI could transform the world for the better. Better known for talking about the risks, in the delightfully titled Machines of Loving Grace, Amodei lays it all on the table. Once we get truly powerful AI – a “country of geniuses in a datacenter” – which may be as soon as 2026, in the following five to ten years our world will be turned upside down: “the defeat of most diseases, the growth in biological and cognitive freedom, the lifting of billions of people out of poverty to share in the new technologies, a renaissance of liberal democracy and human rights.” Ideas don’t come much bigger than this. The essay deserves to be read in full.
As Matt Clancy discusses on X, many economists think technological diffusion takes much longer, but there is no getting away from the fact that there is a growing consensus that we’re on the precipice of something significant. While Amodei is at pains to avoid the language of science fiction, it’s impossible to avoid the convergence. How long before we’re catching crumbs from the table?