3 ms·

You're picking out silly details in the predictions. The predictions about desktops to laptops is about computers getting smaller in general, the detail about l

by Detrus 16y ago

You're picking out silly details in the predictions. The predictions about desktops to laptops is about computers getting smaller in general, the detail about laptops was just an example, computers fitting inside jewelry is another example. Do computers fit inside jewelry and get worn on clothes? Yes, RIFD chips and iPod shuffles are jewelry sized. He didn't miss smaller than state movements having significant influence, he mentioned that ultimately anyone will have the capability to severely disrupt society. Computer viruses could be a serious problem when brain implants will be widespread. Science fiction writers thought of this in the 50's. No one is claiming that those predictions will be exact to the last detail. We don't know how AIs will look, how brain implants will work in detail today. Maybe 140 char messages are a vital piece of such systems, we'd stumble on that anyway. You don't need to know every detail. If Google didn't happen, some clever social networking portal system would have happened. If facebook didn't happen, some other way to ID users would. The larger trends are obvious, the details are not. VCs saw The Matrix. They care how your startup fits into the market in this decade, they want to see something that works now, not hot air about how amazing the future will be. (Intelligent assistants are GPS things that tell you where to turn and voice activated customer support menus. The prediction about new forms of government are social networks. The underlying idea is that as communication becomes more frequent, less of a hassle, governments and corporations will get reorganized, the startup mania is part of that)

nostrademons 16y ago
If you don't pick out the details, the predictions have no substance. I could predict today that in 50 years, the earth will still exist. I am almost certain it will be true. But it's also meaningless, because everyone could predict that, and there's really not much you can do with that prediction. The same with many of the predictions that you mention. It's a fairly good bet that in 10 years, people will use computers to communicate. But that's a useless prediction - so what? Maybe it's useful fodder for cocktail-party conversation, but maybe not even then - there's really not much meat to discuss in that. In fact, Kurzweil was wrong about even one of his "safe" predictions. He predicted that the stock market would be higher in 2009 than in 2001, something that's been true of every decade since the 1930s. It wasn't. The details matter. There's an amazing human trend toward confirmation bias - when people find that one of their predictions hasn't panned out, they try and broaden it out, ignore a few details, and fit the data to their predictions. But if you want your data to have any validity at all, you can't do this. Your predictions need to be specific enough in both details and timeframe that you can unequivocally state whether or not they're true, in their original form. And if they aren't, well, they're false. (And I suspect your overall point, that VCs don't care about these predictions, is something I'd totally agree with. But we have a different idea of what a prediction is. I don't think pundit wankery that speaks in vague generalities about the future counts as a prediction at all. I do think VCs care about predictions, but they care about prediction in the more specific sense, something that is actionable and will be either right or wrong.)
- Detrus 16y ago
  Ray didn't expect his predictions to be as accurate as they were. When he made them they weren't obvious to everyone, now they are. They have plenty of substance and are accurate enough to be useful. GPS or genius playlists as intelligent assistants is not broadening it out, it's the change in jargon, the way things would be branded and viewed that he got wrong. People don't call voice commands AI, but he did. He expected a social backlash to the march of technology, like the anti-facebook groups and then violent sabotage. He expected it to slow things down, but ultimately technology is irresistible. That's not a statement by a person who cares about the details of his predictions. This whole prediction accuracy threw my point off topic. The point is startup ideas are just as interesting as Ray's predictions about the future. The number of people a company's idea impresses doesn't predict success of that particular company. The bigger factor is probably the type of people the startup world attracts, the reorganization. They don't think like the people in larger corporations, they're more motivated, addicted to stress, whatever. The ideas they have aren't more amazing than the ideas in big corporate R&D departments, the difference is now the projects are tested out before getting cancelled by people who saw them only in a spreadsheet. So VCs don't care about ideas, like they don't care about general predictions. They're mostly investing in small companies, not setting up trading strategies. In the current world where VCs invest in particular companies of people, not ideas, it makes more sense to invest in companies that are somewhat functional. Even if their idea seems dumb or has to change, competent people will make something work. People that bet it all on an idea aren't flexible, aren't a wise investment. That's why investors prefer simple, practical ideas when nothing is built yet. More depends on the people than the idea and a fast to build idea lets people show their important skills, like salesmanship. ---- As far as "safe" stock market predictions, that's your interpretation since you're interested in money centered economics. His "safe" prediction is that money would change step by step, become obsolete sometime this century. The fancy financial instruments made by quants which screwed up the stock market fit right into that "safe" prediction. It's safe because money is a bad measurement system and as we get more information we'll be able to measure better.

by Detrus 16y ago

nostrademons 16y ago

If you don't pick out the details, the predictions have no substance. I could predict today that in 50 years, the earth will still exist. I am almost certain it will be true. But it's also meaningless, because everyone could predict that, and there's really not much you can do with that prediction. The same with many of the predictions that you mention. It's a fairly good bet that in 10 years, people will use computers to communicate. But that's a useless prediction - so what? Maybe it's useful fodder for cocktail-party conversation, but maybe not even then - there's really not much meat to discuss in that. In fact, Kurzweil was wrong about even one of his "safe" predictions. He predicted that the stock market would be higher in 2009 than in 2001, something that's been true of every decade since the 1930s. It wasn't. The details matter. There's an amazing human trend toward confirmation bias - when people find that one of their predictions hasn't panned out, they try and broaden it out, ignore a few details, and fit the data to their predictions. But if you want your data to have any validity at all, you can't do this. Your predictions need to be specific enough in both details and timeframe that you can unequivocally state whether or not they're true, in their original form. And if they aren't, well, they're false. (And I suspect your overall point, that VCs don't care about these predictions, is something I'd totally agree with. But we have a different idea of what a prediction is. I don't think pundit wankery that speaks in vague generalities about the future counts as a prediction at all. I do think VCs care about predictions, but they care about prediction in the more specific sense, something that is actionable and will be either right or wrong.)

Detrus 16y ago
Ray didn't expect his predictions to be as accurate as they were. When he made them they weren't obvious to everyone, now they are. They have plenty of substance and are accurate enough to be useful. GPS or genius playlists as intelligent assistants is not broadening it out, it's the change in jargon, the way things would be branded and viewed that he got wrong. People don't call voice commands AI, but he did. He expected a social backlash to the march of technology, like the anti-facebook groups and then violent sabotage. He expected it to slow things down, but ultimately technology is irresistible. That's not a statement by a person who cares about the details of his predictions. This whole prediction accuracy threw my point off topic. The point is startup ideas are just as interesting as Ray's predictions about the future. The number of people a company's idea impresses doesn't predict success of that particular company. The bigger factor is probably the type of people the startup world attracts, the reorganization. They don't think like the people in larger corporations, they're more motivated, addicted to stress, whatever. The ideas they have aren't more amazing than the ideas in big corporate R&D departments, the difference is now the projects are tested out before getting cancelled by people who saw them only in a spreadsheet. So VCs don't care about ideas, like they don't care about general predictions. They're mostly investing in small companies, not setting up trading strategies. In the current world where VCs invest in particular companies of people, not ideas, it makes more sense to invest in companies that are somewhat functional. Even if their idea seems dumb or has to change, competent people will make something work. People that bet it all on an idea aren't flexible, aren't a wise investment. That's why investors prefer simple, practical ideas when nothing is built yet. More depends on the people than the idea and a fast to build idea lets people show their important skills, like salesmanship. ---- As far as "safe" stock market predictions, that's your interpretation since you're interested in money centered economics. His "safe" prediction is that money would change step by step, become obsolete sometime this century. The fancy financial instruments made by quants which screwed up the stock market fit right into that "safe" prediction. It's safe because money is a bad measurement system and as we get more information we'll be able to measure better.