Is this true? As someone who hasn't seriously studied the history of technology, it doesn't feel true to me.
Two reasons this feels untrue:
1. Before there were semiconductors, exponential improvements in technologies were common. It would be extraordinary if this is now false except when semiconductors were involved. The overwhelmingly likely mechanism for that would be if semiconductors caused such fast improvements in everything that non-semiconductor improvements are a rounding error, but
that seems extremely unlikely?
2. It seems easy to name an arbitrarily large number of technologies where exponential improvements aren't only or mostly due to semiconductors. To pick an example that most tech-adjacent people wouldn't think of, the (average) YoY improvements in car tires are pretty incredible. While advances in simulation have contributed to advances in tires, advances don't seem to mostly come from simulation?
One question I have is: why would someone think this is true?
@danluu Consider solar panels and batteries.
There's a great article on learning curves in renewable energy. The but of ut is the observation that the more you do something else the better you get at it. Solar power has followed an exponential improvement (capacity/price) trend for quite a long time.
@dneto @danluu I wonder if the author of the OP quote would include this as an example or a counterexample of the point. (Search for the phrase "improve the production processes of the silicon ingots and wafers" in your article...)
If the quote isn't true, it seems like the easiest way to debunk it is to provide some compelling counterexamples. In fact, that would feel like such an obvious way, that instead focusing on earlier exponential tech improvements makes me suspicious. So: I'm assuming the quote is mostly true.
