5 ms·

Thanks for the suggestion, have the PDF downloaded and will read. Since I haven't read it I can't comment on your rebuttals but have a follow-up question... I

Thanks for the suggestion, have the PDF downloaded and will read. Since I haven't read it I can't comment on your rebuttals but have a follow-up question... If we imagine a scenario where all of his predictions of applied tech are wrong but the mathematical thesis of accelerating returns is correct how would that impact your perspective on him? My argument wasn't that he did not make literal predictions, he did and still does, but that these predictions are just his best guess based on what he observes through his demonstrated law of accelerating returns.

jaredklewis 9y ago
I’m not very familiar with his work, but when theory does not align with empirical data, does that not often indicate the theory should be revisited? I read your link and his ideas seem very interesting. But I would think the real test of his ideas will be if the “law” he has extrapolated from observing historic phenomena like the rate of human genome processing or growth of ISP cost performance can be generally and reliably applied to predict the growth rate of new technologies. If predictions made using the law of accelerating returns are unreliable, how useful is it?
jsnell 9y ago
Unlimited exponential growth is a horrible way to model anything. The real world has all kinds of limits, nothing can grow for ever. First those limits are going to be soft economic limits, slowing the rate of growth. Eventually they become hard physical ones, making growth literally impossible. It won't be exponential growth, it'll be logistic. So the seemingly innocent "let's assume that this mathematical thesis is correct" is a pretty high bar. Unlimited growth is an exceptional claim, it needs exceptional evidence.
- rrivers 9y ago
  To be clear nothing in his model suggests unlimited. He has mentioned in his writings that it is in fact limited, but that limit may as well be unlimited for you and i (within our lifetimes)

jaredklewis 9y ago

I’m not very familiar with his work, but when theory does not align with empirical data, does that not often indicate the theory should be revisited? I read your link and his ideas seem very interesting. But I would think the real test of his ideas will be if the “law” he has extrapolated from observing historic phenomena like the rate of human genome processing or growth of ISP cost performance can be generally and reliably applied to predict the growth rate of new technologies. If predictions made using the law of accelerating returns are unreliable, how useful is it?

jsnell 9y ago

Unlimited exponential growth is a horrible way to model anything. The real world has all kinds of limits, nothing can grow for ever. First those limits are going to be soft economic limits, slowing the rate of growth. Eventually they become hard physical ones, making growth literally impossible. It won't be exponential growth, it'll be logistic. So the seemingly innocent "let's assume that this mathematical thesis is correct" is a pretty high bar. Unlimited growth is an exceptional claim, it needs exceptional evidence.

rrivers 9y ago
To be clear nothing in his model suggests unlimited. He has mentioned in his writings that it is in fact limited, but that limit may as well be unlimited for you and i (within our lifetimes)