4 ms·

The Human Genome Project is one of his most cited examples. After 15 years of work the team was at 1% completion. Critics were vocal about how it would take 1

The Human Genome Project is one of his most cited examples. After 15 years of work the team was at 1% completion. Critics were vocal about how it would take 100+ years to complete. Kurzweil predicted 7 years (7 Doublings of 1 is 128). I interpret your question in response to my statements as you are not a fan because his predictions are not unique, is that what you are saying?

pmoriarty 9y ago
"The Human Genome Project is one of his most cited examples. After 15 years of work the team was at 1% completion. Critics were vocal about how it would take 100+ years to complete. Kurzweil predicted 7 years (7 Doublings of 1 is 128)." When did he make this prediction? Was it before Craig Venter started working it? Can you quote exactly what he said at the time and provide a source? Also, you originally said a "significant % of his predictions have come true within a ~15-year window". You've mentioned only single prediction. Unless he only made a few predictions, that's not a significant percentage. "I interpret your question in response to my statements as you are not a fan because his predictions are not unique, is that what you are saying?" I just have a severe allergy to people who hype themselves as much as Kurzweil does, especially when one of the main things they're known for -- the singularity idea -- came from someone else: Vernor Vinge. This just smells of charlatanism. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, however. So if you've got more examples of Kurzeweil making long-term predictions well in advance of others and consistently being right, I'd love to hear them. However, even if he is a good futurist, he'll still be a self-promoting copycat on the singularity idea he hyped to the heavens, and for which he made himself most famous.
- tim333 9y ago
  In his main singularity book he says the idea comes from Vinge. I'm not sure writing about other peoples ideas is that much of a charlatan thing.
- rrivers 9y ago
  Lets assume you are correct and his predictions are no better or more accurate than anyone else's. Even better let's assume they're all wrong and always will be moving forward. Similar to what I posted above if his mathematical thesis of the Law of Accelerating returns is correct how does he fare in your perspective? From my perspective as someone who has read his works but albeit likely not researched rebuttals as deeply as you this stands as my clear takeaway.
eesmith 9y ago
Those dates and interpretation doesn't seem right. First, where are the 15 years of work by a given team? Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project : "After the idea was picked up in 1984 by the US government when the planning started, the [Human Genome Project] formally launched in 1990 and was declared complete in 2003." and "An initial rough draft of the human genome was available in June 2000". That sounds like it was more than 1% done in 10 years. Second, who thought it would take 100+ years? Quoting the same link: "The $3-billion project was formally founded in 1990 by the US Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health, and was expected to take 15 years." Third, when did Kurzweil make his prediction? If it was 15 years after the start, and 7 years before the end in 2003, then are you saying he made his prediction in 1996 and the project started in 1981?
rrivers 9y ago
Need to make a formal correction; I recalled this information incorrectly. 7.5 Years into the project they were at 1% completion. 15 was the total amount of time targeted. "Halfway through the genome project, the project’s original critics were still going strong, pointing out that we were halfway through the 15 year project and only 1 percent of the genome had been identified. The project was declared a failure by many skeptics at this point. But the project had been doubling in price-performance and capacity every year, and at one percent it was only seven doublings (at one year per doubling) away from completion. It was indeed completed seven years later. Similarly, my projection of a worldwide communication network tying together tens and ultimately hundreds of millions of people, emerging in the mid to late 1990s, was scoffed at in the 1980s, when the entire U.S. Defense Budget could only tie together a few thousand scientists with the ARPANET. But it happened as I predicted, and again this resulted from the power of exponential growth." http://www.kurzweilai.net/ray-kurzweil-responds-to-ray-kurzweil-does-not-understand-the-brain http://www.kurzweilai.net/ray-kurzweil-responds-to-ray-kurzw...
- eesmith 9y ago
  When did he make that prediction? Was it in 1997, or was it a retrospective analysis made after the project was complete? The draft genome was available in early 2001. How does that fit into the timeline? According to the doubling prediction, with 4 years to go less than 20% of the genome should have been available. However, the actual draft had 90% of the sequence. https://www.genome.gov/10002192/2001-release-first-analysis-of-human-genome/ https://www.genome.gov/10002192/2001-release-first-analysis-... . It took another 3 years until it was called "done", which means that the simple measurement of completion was not exponential, but more likely S-curved. (I think parts of the genome still aren't sequenced because of the regions of high repeats.)

pmoriarty 9y ago

"The Human Genome Project is one of his most cited examples. After 15 years of work the team was at 1% completion. Critics were vocal about how it would take 100+ years to complete. Kurzweil predicted 7 years (7 Doublings of 1 is 128)." When did he make this prediction? Was it before Craig Venter started working it? Can you quote exactly what he said at the time and provide a source? Also, you originally said a "significant % of his predictions have come true within a ~15-year window". You've mentioned only single prediction. Unless he only made a few predictions, that's not a significant percentage. "I interpret your question in response to my statements as you are not a fan because his predictions are not unique, is that what you are saying?" I just have a severe allergy to people who hype themselves as much as Kurzweil does, especially when one of the main things they're known for -- the singularity idea -- came from someone else: Vernor Vinge. This just smells of charlatanism. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, however. So if you've got more examples of Kurzeweil making long-term predictions well in advance of others and consistently being right, I'd love to hear them. However, even if he is a good futurist, he'll still be a self-promoting copycat on the singularity idea he hyped to the heavens, and for which he made himself most famous.

tim333 9y ago
In his main singularity book he says the idea comes from Vinge. I'm not sure writing about other peoples ideas is that much of a charlatan thing.
rrivers 9y ago
Lets assume you are correct and his predictions are no better or more accurate than anyone else's. Even better let's assume they're all wrong and always will be moving forward. Similar to what I posted above if his mathematical thesis of the Law of Accelerating returns is correct how does he fare in your perspective? From my perspective as someone who has read his works but albeit likely not researched rebuttals as deeply as you this stands as my clear takeaway.

eesmith 9y ago

Those dates and interpretation doesn't seem right. First, where are the 15 years of work by a given team? Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project : "After the idea was picked up in 1984 by the US government when the planning started, the [Human Genome Project] formally launched in 1990 and was declared complete in 2003." and "An initial rough draft of the human genome was available in June 2000". That sounds like it was more than 1% done in 10 years. Second, who thought it would take 100+ years? Quoting the same link: "The $3-billion project was formally founded in 1990 by the US Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health, and was expected to take 15 years." Third, when did Kurzweil make his prediction? If it was 15 years after the start, and 7 years before the end in 2003, then are you saying he made his prediction in 1996 and the project started in 1981?

rrivers 9y ago

Need to make a formal correction; I recalled this information incorrectly. 7.5 Years into the project they were at 1% completion. 15 was the total amount of time targeted. "Halfway through the genome project, the project’s original critics were still going strong, pointing out that we were halfway through the 15 year project and only 1 percent of the genome had been identified. The project was declared a failure by many skeptics at this point. But the project had been doubling in price-performance and capacity every year, and at one percent it was only seven doublings (at one year per doubling) away from completion. It was indeed completed seven years later. Similarly, my projection of a worldwide communication network tying together tens and ultimately hundreds of millions of people, emerging in the mid to late 1990s, was scoffed at in the 1980s, when the entire U.S. Defense Budget could only tie together a few thousand scientists with the ARPANET. But it happened as I predicted, and again this resulted from the power of exponential growth." http://www.kurzweilai.net/ray-kurzweil-responds-to-ray-kurzweil-does-not-understand-the-brain http://www.kurzweilai.net/ray-kurzweil-responds-to-ray-kurzw...

eesmith 9y ago
When did he make that prediction? Was it in 1997, or was it a retrospective analysis made after the project was complete? The draft genome was available in early 2001. How does that fit into the timeline? According to the doubling prediction, with 4 years to go less than 20% of the genome should have been available. However, the actual draft had 90% of the sequence. https://www.genome.gov/10002192/2001-release-first-analysis-of-human-genome/ https://www.genome.gov/10002192/2001-release-first-analysis-... . It took another 3 years until it was called "done", which means that the simple measurement of completion was not exponential, but more likely S-curved. (I think parts of the genome still aren't sequenced because of the regions of high repeats.)