4 ms·

First of all thanks for actually replying with a full list. > Claiming it's a fail for being 1 second late is not a rational position and not at all in the spi

First of all thanks for actually replying with a full list. > Claiming it's a fail for being 1 second late is not a rational position and not at all in the spirit the predictions were made. I would keep to the level of precision the predictor themselves claimed. If the predictor said an event would occur at “23:59:59 UTC” it would be fair to criticize them for being a second late. If the predictor claimed an event would occur on a day, fair to criticize them for being a day late, and so on for all units of time. If a predictor says an event will occur in 2019 but it occurs in 2020, yes that is incorrect, the predictor could have hedged by a year if they wanted to. Why is it the observer’s job to do the hedging rather than the predictor’s job? > Someone says computers will be in everything. You can say "there's no computer's in fruit!, FAIL!" While I disagree about the timing, I agree slightly that there is some nuance regarding phrases like “everything”, “everywhere”, “popular” and so on. However there is a way out for the predictor: use a more specific phrase like “used by over 20% of the US population” instead of “popular”. Once again (and this applies to the entire page of comments not just yours): why is it the observer’s job to do the hedging rather than the predictor? On to the specific predictions… > 2009 * Most books will be read on screens rather than paper. The charitable interpretation is that most reading happens on screens, not paper. This is true today. I disagree with the charitable interpretation, there has been plenty of writing outside of books for decades and a person like Kurzweil getting their books published would know that. If the prediction says “books” instead of “writing” it should be judged for that choice. > * Intelligent roads and driverless cars will be in use, mostly on highways. False in 2009, False in 2026 but directionally true. Even if the prediction were true in 2026, 15 years is a long time to be off. A person who decided not to get a driving license thinking that driverless cars are right around the corner would be disappointed. That’s a silly way to behave mainly because when making a decision like that, people have other sources to turn to than Kurzweil. And where are the “intelligent roads”? > * Computers can recognize their owner's face from a picture or video. > Face ID shipped in 2017. Is that to far off? Compared to 2009? Yeah that’s absolutely too far.

socalgal2 11d ago
I look at it like this. I read the book when he made the predictions. Many of them came true. So those predictions were useful to me. It sounds like for you, the fact that they weren't perfect made them worthless and he's someone who's opinions you should ignore. I see enough of his predictions as close enough that I think he was worth listening to. He predicted computers would equal the human brain by 2029. The majority of AI researchers now believe it will be even sooner. When he made the prediction, most people thought he was far far far off or maybe even talking science fiction. Yet here we are. His biggest point was expoential progress very common in many domains. Whatever the state of something is, if it's improving expoentially it will seem like it's not close to being there yet, a short time before it's actually there. A lake that takes 30 days to fill and gets filled double the previous amount every day seems empty for 28 days, at day 28 it's 1/4th full so still looks mostly empty. At day 29 it's 1/2 full. I personally see is exponetial preductions as mostly true. I think that will be true of self driving cars. They are later than predicted but they exist and are expanding quickly. Waymo is in 14 cities. How many times do they and their competetors have to double before they're ubiquitous? That idea was introduced to me by Kurzweil. Others have pointed out, once robots can build things they'll be used to build robot factories and they'll explode in proliferation. I don't think Kurzweil made that prediction but I think his books and presentations on exponential growth influenced others to see it in more things.
- socalgal2 11d ago
  Let me add further, I think there is value in separating people like Kurzweil (who I think is basically correct) and people like Paul R. Ehrlich who wrote "The Population Bomb" and who's predictions have almost entirely been falsified completely. They weren't even in the correct direction. The same is true for Ed Zitron. He's not been even directionally correct.

socalgal2 11d ago

I look at it like this. I read the book when he made the predictions. Many of them came true. So those predictions were useful to me. It sounds like for you, the fact that they weren't perfect made them worthless and he's someone who's opinions you should ignore. I see enough of his predictions as close enough that I think he was worth listening to. He predicted computers would equal the human brain by 2029. The majority of AI researchers now believe it will be even sooner. When he made the prediction, most people thought he was far far far off or maybe even talking science fiction. Yet here we are. His biggest point was expoential progress very common in many domains. Whatever the state of something is, if it's improving expoentially it will seem like it's not close to being there yet, a short time before it's actually there. A lake that takes 30 days to fill and gets filled double the previous amount every day seems empty for 28 days, at day 28 it's 1/4th full so still looks mostly empty. At day 29 it's 1/2 full. I personally see is exponetial preductions as mostly true. I think that will be true of self driving cars. They are later than predicted but they exist and are expanding quickly. Waymo is in 14 cities. How many times do they and their competetors have to double before they're ubiquitous? That idea was introduced to me by Kurzweil. Others have pointed out, once robots can build things they'll be used to build robot factories and they'll explode in proliferation. I don't think Kurzweil made that prediction but I think his books and presentations on exponential growth influenced others to see it in more things.

socalgal2 11d ago
Let me add further, I think there is value in separating people like Kurzweil (who I think is basically correct) and people like Paul R. Ehrlich who wrote "The Population Bomb" and who's predictions have almost entirely been falsified completely. They weren't even in the correct direction. The same is true for Ed Zitron. He's not been even directionally correct.