6 ms·

> He gives the example of Ray Kurzweil, who is similarly catastrophically wrong about everything Is he, though? It seems to me that a lot of his predictions we

> He gives the example of Ray Kurzweil, who is similarly catastrophically wrong about everything Is he, though? It seems to me that a lot of his predictions were surprisingly close to the mark, especially given how long ago they were made.

nl 15d ago
Luu's piece linked his analysis! Kurzweil scores 7% accuracy. If you scroll to the appendix he grades individual predictions. https://danluu.com/futurist-predictions/ https://danluu.com/futurist-predictions/
- scarmig 15d ago
  Reading through them, Luu's grades seem fair and accurate to me. Best defense of Kurzweil I can give is that if you give a grace period of a decade and scope them down substantially (to maybe a subset of well-off Americans in coastal cities), he looks much better, though still under 50%. One of Kurzweil's close-but-no-cigar failed predictions was "neural nets and genetic algorithms," killed off by the conjunction and being a couple years too early (2009 for increasing interest, and 2019 for wide use).
  - roenxi 15d ago
    Fair, sure. But it seems to be underselling how reasonable Kurzweil is. We've got things like 2009 - "Computers can recognize their owner's face from a picture or video. No." And ok, sure, but that has happened by 2026 and we have more than 2000 years of recorded history of people making predictions. I don't think that situation reflects at all badly on Kurzweil except that he doesn't explicitly say he has a 15 year error bar. Which, yes, technically inaccurate, but it seems quite likely nobody would be talking about him if he spent that much time exploring the minor caveats. And hitting him for the "and genetic algorithms" is verging on pedantry. Ok so genetic algorithms aren't a civilisation-level success that appears to be reshaping the fate of the species in the same way neural nets are. He was right that learning systems were going to be huge and he was off on a detail.
    - retsibsi 14d ago
      > We've got things like 2009 - "Computers can recognize their owner's face from a picture or video. No." And ok, sure, but that has happened by 2026 and we have more than 2000 years of recorded history of people making predictions. If he was often right-but-early about things that weren't even in the hypothesis space for everyone else, that would be huge, even though his dated predictions would technically be wrong. But this example seems way less exciting. Facial recognition was not a new or impossible-seeming idea, so the remarkable thing about his prediction was the part where he said "by 2009". (And yeah, 15 years is a short time compared to 2000 years, but 'recorded history of people making predictions' is not really a serious reference class for his predictions. He's a guy in the computer age making predictions about what computers will do.)
- dinfinity 15d ago
  The list in the appendix is pretty telling: Yes, the moments are off by a lot, but many of the predictions describe reality well. I'd say that 7% accuracy is on the low side and 86% on the high side. Looking through the list I'd put it more at 50-60% personally. For me that still means that I'd much rather hear about what he has to say about the potential future than most other people.
- Veedrac 15d ago
  If you grade what was linked by whether it is "approximately achievable today", and not some less interesting metric like being predicted for the correct year or if it was outcompeted by some other thing, he's closer to 70-90% depending on how close you're willing to grade. It's very easy to say 'person X made a highly specific testable prediction, while respectable people said nothing like it would ever happen, and it only 90% happened, so person X was a fool unlike all the respectable people', but it's a trap. In reality Kurzweil was directionally correct about most things, overspecified the details, and had optimistic timelines in the way that everyone has optimistic timelines about everything.
  - retsibsi 14d ago
    > while respectable people said nothing like it would ever happen Can you give some examples of predictions he got roughly right where this applies? (Not a gotcha, I'm genuinely interested, because this is the key for me when thinking about whether to give credit for 'close' or 'right but early' predictions. If you're predicting things that most others have dismissed as impossible, or nobody has even thought of, then it's pretty impressive and interesting when you turn out be even roughly correct. (I'll still ding your credibility if you are overconfident about dates and details, but I'll do that while paying plenty of attention to what you say next.) If you're predicting things that are already suspected to be possible, though, and what makes you stand out is your confidence and your timelines, then I'm not going to be very interested when some of your predictions turn out to be fairly close to the truth.)
    - Veedrac 14d ago
      Here's a sample of 10, drawn randomly: 2020-2050: Phone calls entail three-dimensional holographic images of both people. This is totally possible. We could even do it on phones with fairly mundane consumer technology. We can do it with glasses, even. People just don't care. The prediction has yet to land but in spirit is correct. Centuries hence: Computer intelligence becomes superior to human intelligence in all areas. Anyone doubting that this will be true within centuries is nuts. 2009: People can talk to their computer to give commands. At most a couple years early in technicality, and in spirit over a decade early. 2009: Computer displays built into eyeglasses for augmented reality are used. True today, if not a particularly popular product, and later than suggested. 2009: A $1,000 computer can perform a trillion calculations per second. Definitely true today. I think this was basically on time, too. 2019: Most people own more than one PC, though "computer" no longer means laptop or box-plus-monitor. Freebie. 2019: Most learning is via adaptive courseware presented by computer-simulated teachers; human adults are counselors and mentors, not instructors. We obviously could do this today, though it might not be a great idea for the students. Early, and socially blind, but basically right about possibility. 2019: Prototype personal flying vehicles using microflaps exist, primarily computer-controlled. Basically wrong. There are eVTOL companies aiming for this, and people do have camera drones, but the sense it was meant wasn't predictive. 2019: Human-robot relationships begin as simulated personalities become more convincing. Early, subscale, and fought against by providers, but this is a thing. 2029: Massively parallel neural nets constructed by reverse-engineering the human brain are in common use. Ok people will mob me for saying this, but this was more right than wrong. Definitely at least a bit wrong.
- p1esk 15d ago
  Kurzweil predicted in the late 90s that we will have AGI by 2029. And ASI by 2045. Seems very likely to me.
Terr_ 15d ago
I'm convinced all of Kurzweil's predictions through the years can be simplified as (and originate from) "whatever least-implausible dream scenario allows a man of Ray Kurzweil's exact age and health to barely avoid the hitherto-universal icy grip of mortality."
- Ygg2 15d ago
  This SMBC comic https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100813.gif https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100813.gif
  - Terr_ 15d ago
    Tangentially related in terms of "old stuff from other things I read", this 2006 critique [0] by Derek Lowe: > Later in Kurzweil's article, he says: > > "So what does the future hold? By 2019, we will largely overcome the major diseases that kill 95 percent of us in the developed world, and we will be dramatically slowing and reversing the dozen or so processes that underlie aging." > [...] I really do expect to put cancer, heart disease, the major infections, and the degenerative disorders in their place. But do I expect to do it by 20-flipping-19? It's hard to be optimistic when it's been those 13 years plus another 7 and somehow measles is back again, although I admit that's one isn't a pure technology-problem. [0] https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/ray-kurzweil-s-future https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/ray-kurzweil-s-fut...
    - sanderjd 15d ago
      But that's kinda the point, there's no such thing as "a pure technology-problem". I think that's the fundamental - and obvious - thing that these folks seem to constantly miss.
- bluealienpie 15d ago
  I was awed by the future he promised, especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respirocyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respirocyte Looking back, he’s great at selling a future of possibility as long as you don’t track all the errors.

nl 15d ago

Luu's piece linked his analysis! Kurzweil scores 7% accuracy. If you scroll to the appendix he grades individual predictions. https://danluu.com/futurist-predictions/ https://danluu.com/futurist-predictions/

scarmig 15d ago
Reading through them, Luu's grades seem fair and accurate to me. Best defense of Kurzweil I can give is that if you give a grace period of a decade and scope them down substantially (to maybe a subset of well-off Americans in coastal cities), he looks much better, though still under 50%. One of Kurzweil's close-but-no-cigar failed predictions was "neural nets and genetic algorithms," killed off by the conjunction and being a couple years too early (2009 for increasing interest, and 2019 for wide use).
- roenxi 15d ago
  Fair, sure. But it seems to be underselling how reasonable Kurzweil is. We've got things like 2009 - "Computers can recognize their owner's face from a picture or video. No." And ok, sure, but that has happened by 2026 and we have more than 2000 years of recorded history of people making predictions. I don't think that situation reflects at all badly on Kurzweil except that he doesn't explicitly say he has a 15 year error bar. Which, yes, technically inaccurate, but it seems quite likely nobody would be talking about him if he spent that much time exploring the minor caveats. And hitting him for the "and genetic algorithms" is verging on pedantry. Ok so genetic algorithms aren't a civilisation-level success that appears to be reshaping the fate of the species in the same way neural nets are. He was right that learning systems were going to be huge and he was off on a detail.
  - retsibsi 14d ago
    > We've got things like 2009 - "Computers can recognize their owner's face from a picture or video. No." And ok, sure, but that has happened by 2026 and we have more than 2000 years of recorded history of people making predictions. If he was often right-but-early about things that weren't even in the hypothesis space for everyone else, that would be huge, even though his dated predictions would technically be wrong. But this example seems way less exciting. Facial recognition was not a new or impossible-seeming idea, so the remarkable thing about his prediction was the part where he said "by 2009". (And yeah, 15 years is a short time compared to 2000 years, but 'recorded history of people making predictions' is not really a serious reference class for his predictions. He's a guy in the computer age making predictions about what computers will do.)
dinfinity 15d ago
The list in the appendix is pretty telling: Yes, the moments are off by a lot, but many of the predictions describe reality well. I'd say that 7% accuracy is on the low side and 86% on the high side. Looking through the list I'd put it more at 50-60% personally. For me that still means that I'd much rather hear about what he has to say about the potential future than most other people.
Veedrac 15d ago
If you grade what was linked by whether it is "approximately achievable today", and not some less interesting metric like being predicted for the correct year or if it was outcompeted by some other thing, he's closer to 70-90% depending on how close you're willing to grade. It's very easy to say 'person X made a highly specific testable prediction, while respectable people said nothing like it would ever happen, and it only 90% happened, so person X was a fool unlike all the respectable people', but it's a trap. In reality Kurzweil was directionally correct about most things, overspecified the details, and had optimistic timelines in the way that everyone has optimistic timelines about everything.
- retsibsi 14d ago
  > while respectable people said nothing like it would ever happen Can you give some examples of predictions he got roughly right where this applies? (Not a gotcha, I'm genuinely interested, because this is the key for me when thinking about whether to give credit for 'close' or 'right but early' predictions. If you're predicting things that most others have dismissed as impossible, or nobody has even thought of, then it's pretty impressive and interesting when you turn out be even roughly correct. (I'll still ding your credibility if you are overconfident about dates and details, but I'll do that while paying plenty of attention to what you say next.) If you're predicting things that are already suspected to be possible, though, and what makes you stand out is your confidence and your timelines, then I'm not going to be very interested when some of your predictions turn out to be fairly close to the truth.)
  - Veedrac 14d ago
    Here's a sample of 10, drawn randomly: 2020-2050: Phone calls entail three-dimensional holographic images of both people. This is totally possible. We could even do it on phones with fairly mundane consumer technology. We can do it with glasses, even. People just don't care. The prediction has yet to land but in spirit is correct. Centuries hence: Computer intelligence becomes superior to human intelligence in all areas. Anyone doubting that this will be true within centuries is nuts. 2009: People can talk to their computer to give commands. At most a couple years early in technicality, and in spirit over a decade early. 2009: Computer displays built into eyeglasses for augmented reality are used. True today, if not a particularly popular product, and later than suggested. 2009: A $1,000 computer can perform a trillion calculations per second. Definitely true today. I think this was basically on time, too. 2019: Most people own more than one PC, though "computer" no longer means laptop or box-plus-monitor. Freebie. 2019: Most learning is via adaptive courseware presented by computer-simulated teachers; human adults are counselors and mentors, not instructors. We obviously could do this today, though it might not be a great idea for the students. Early, and socially blind, but basically right about possibility. 2019: Prototype personal flying vehicles using microflaps exist, primarily computer-controlled. Basically wrong. There are eVTOL companies aiming for this, and people do have camera drones, but the sense it was meant wasn't predictive. 2019: Human-robot relationships begin as simulated personalities become more convincing. Early, subscale, and fought against by providers, but this is a thing. 2029: Massively parallel neural nets constructed by reverse-engineering the human brain are in common use. Ok people will mob me for saying this, but this was more right than wrong. Definitely at least a bit wrong.
p1esk 15d ago
Kurzweil predicted in the late 90s that we will have AGI by 2029. And ASI by 2045. Seems very likely to me.

Terr_ 15d ago

I'm convinced all of Kurzweil's predictions through the years can be simplified as (and originate from) "whatever least-implausible dream scenario allows a man of Ray Kurzweil's exact age and health to barely avoid the hitherto-universal icy grip of mortality."

Ygg2 15d ago
This SMBC comic https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100813.gif https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100813.gif
- Terr_ 15d ago
  Tangentially related in terms of "old stuff from other things I read", this 2006 critique [0] by Derek Lowe: > Later in Kurzweil's article, he says: > > "So what does the future hold? By 2019, we will largely overcome the major diseases that kill 95 percent of us in the developed world, and we will be dramatically slowing and reversing the dozen or so processes that underlie aging." > [...] I really do expect to put cancer, heart disease, the major infections, and the degenerative disorders in their place. But do I expect to do it by 20-flipping-19? It's hard to be optimistic when it's been those 13 years plus another 7 and somehow measles is back again, although I admit that's one isn't a pure technology-problem. [0] https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/ray-kurzweil-s-future https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/ray-kurzweil-s-fut...
  - sanderjd 15d ago
    But that's kinda the point, there's no such thing as "a pure technology-problem". I think that's the fundamental - and obvious - thing that these folks seem to constantly miss.
bluealienpie 15d ago
I was awed by the future he promised, especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respirocyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respirocyte Looking back, he’s great at selling a future of possibility as long as you don’t track all the errors.