We can alter our physical environment and change how we organize ourselves to accomplish complex goals. No other species on earth can do both. Animals that manage to craft tools (such as chimpanzees) are fascinating academically, but compared to humans, we can conclusively say that only we do these things with any significance. Societal innovation is the more critical driver behind technological revolutions that’ve led to great leaps in population and economic prosperity. Societal and cultural changes (or lack thereof) will also define future technological revolutions, such as the emergence of machine intelligence.
When we discuss innovation, it is scientific discovery that comes to most people's minds (for simplicity, I'll use 'scientific' for both 'science' and 'engineering' as the distinction is not critical for this article) - controlling fire, hand tools, the wheel, steam engine, computer, manned flight, transistors to name only a few. Yet, how we communicate, organize, and govern ourselves is also technology, which drives the explosive growth and application of scientific knowledge. Only humans can decide to change how we operate socially and communicate with each other. These changes for other animals over time are a function of evolution, not deliberation.
"How we communicate, organize, and govern ourselves is also technology."
Transforming how we organize ourselves (societal innovation) is messy to create and manage. Ultimately, we all agree on social structures that define 'people, power, and purpose.' Who belongs in our society and who does not, who's in charge, and what are we here to do together? War, famine, and disruptive technologies are some things that upset the balance of and create anxiety around 'people, power, and purpose.' The innovation of new social orders must reestablish equilibrium among all three. If that balance is not renewed, there will be no technological revolution. If we want to realize the full potential of a machine intelligence revolution, we need a societal structure supporting a productive post-disruption society. And that societal structure must lead, not follow, the revolution.
For centuries, conventional wisdom has been that disruptive new technology spurred social upheavals resulting in a new social order. The reverse is actually true. Innovative societal structures lead to a proliferation of technological discovery. For example, the invention of the modern corporation, limited liability, and shared risks and rewards, combined with the emergence of liberal democracy, allowed the first industrial revolution. Those societal innovations permitted Britain (later Europe and the United States and others) to commercialize and use the steam engine, mechanized factories, and other modern production methods. Some people may immediately point to examples of countries that managed to industrialize without those things. Those examples will always be at the tail of the Industrial Revolution, and they didn't industrialize until they reformed their societies to include the necessary social structures.
This also happened in the Neolithic agricultural revolution, which was not a function of advances in irrigation, agriculture, or other feats of science and engineering. It was a function of the innovations of organized religion and rule by a divinely empowered monarch. For example, religion was fundamental to daily life in ancient Egyptian society. One of the responsibilities of the pharaoh was to act as an intermediary between the gods and the people. There is a minor but growing opinion (which is correct) that people did not start farming first and then establish cities, organized religion, and monarchies. They began creating a new social order and belief system. Then they started innovating to have enough food locally without leaving their temples and settlements unprotected while they were away foraging and hunting, thus the rise of agriculture and the science and engineering that followed.
This brings us back to today. What will it take for a machine intelligence revolution to emerge? How will we innovate culturally and socially to make the next great technological leap? It's never a given that any new technological discovery's potential will be fully realized; culture and social enablers are critically important, and we all would pay attention to that. Whether intelligent machines lead to nothing special, a bump in productivity, or a technological revolution depends on human cultural and social adjustments. Assuming that we will produce technology and then positive, productive things will happen automatically is not a recipe for success. Throughout history, a little luck and a lot of innovation have brought humanity to this point today and averted existential threats on more than one occasion. We may be at another fork in the road. Stew Friedman (Wharton organizational psychologist and Mir Ventures advisor) said recently that - We have no time to waste. Investing in technologies and companies that enable cooperation to solve global challenges is urgently necessary. Stew is right.