5 ms·

One of Kurzweil's important points is that humans consistently underestimate the speed of exponential growth. We have a natural bias to assume rates of growth a

One of Kurzweil's important points is that humans consistently underestimate the speed of exponential growth. We have a natural bias to assume rates of growth are constant. But with exponential growth, the rate of growth is exponential, and the rate of growth of the rate of growth is exponential, etc. So although it seems like his predictions are pretty wild, they are merely based on extrapolating out the present exponential curves to the future. Keep in mind your own bias about this when criticising his conclusions. To refute him, you'd need to argue that the exponential growth was going to stop, or that his calculations about the rate of growth are wrong.

possibilistic 15y ago
I believe that there is a large difference between the magnitude of error in my natural bias for estimating exponential rates of growth and the naive application of a mathematical model to the fields of biotechnology and cognitive science by someone untrained in either. Computing hardware and software may be developing rapidly due to the commercial sector, but my guess is that the developments in academia (algorithms, etc.) are hardly exponential. What about the fields where happenstance discoveries drive improvement? Innovation occurs readily in fields that have money--mobile computing is huge right now, isn't it? The question is whether this distribution of reward correlates with the reverse salients of technological advancement. In my original post I offered several predictions for the growth of biotechnology. I think I'm placing important and valid markers to be able to identify the trend. When I see them happen I'll be happy to conclude that we're on the path to exponential growth in our field. (Note: I follow this area well enough to see where the reverse salients lie and what discoveries may inform us to better techniques.) I'm tired of the Kurzweil meme because I feel that it gives people a comfort that we'll reach some kind of Utopia without much effort. It's wrong, and quite frankly damaging. If the people who believe in him so strongly really want to see his vision happen, perhaps they would lend their hands in developing automation tools for us biologists.
- Astrohacker 15y ago
  > I'm tired of the Kurzweil meme because I feel that it gives people a comfort that we'll reach some kind of Utopia without much effort. Sounds like you're arguing we shouldn't hold comforting beliefs because, even if they are true, they might make us less productive. However, I think it is wiser to hold beliefs that are true, always. The reason is that it is, in general, far more valuable to hold correct beliefs than false ones. The fact that there are some special cases where holding false beliefs is better is useless, because there is no way to know when those cases are without first having correct beliefs. Further, Kurzweil has (obviously) never argued that it wouldn't take any effort to bring these technologies about. What he has argued is that we will put forth the effort to make them happen. If anything, it is rather discomforting to think about how much work is going to have to go into this.
- Dn_Ab 15y ago
  Could you go more into developing automation tools for biologists?
Dn_Ab 15y ago
Is there anything observed in the real world that is actually of exponential growth and not in fact logistic - affected by negative feedback effects? In an effectively finite universe continued exponential growth is impossible.

possibilistic 15y ago

I believe that there is a large difference between the magnitude of error in my natural bias for estimating exponential rates of growth and the naive application of a mathematical model to the fields of biotechnology and cognitive science by someone untrained in either. Computing hardware and software may be developing rapidly due to the commercial sector, but my guess is that the developments in academia (algorithms, etc.) are hardly exponential. What about the fields where happenstance discoveries drive improvement? Innovation occurs readily in fields that have money--mobile computing is huge right now, isn't it? The question is whether this distribution of reward correlates with the reverse salients of technological advancement. In my original post I offered several predictions for the growth of biotechnology. I think I'm placing important and valid markers to be able to identify the trend. When I see them happen I'll be happy to conclude that we're on the path to exponential growth in our field. (Note: I follow this area well enough to see where the reverse salients lie and what discoveries may inform us to better techniques.) I'm tired of the Kurzweil meme because I feel that it gives people a comfort that we'll reach some kind of Utopia without much effort. It's wrong, and quite frankly damaging. If the people who believe in him so strongly really want to see his vision happen, perhaps they would lend their hands in developing automation tools for us biologists.

Astrohacker 15y ago
> I'm tired of the Kurzweil meme because I feel that it gives people a comfort that we'll reach some kind of Utopia without much effort. Sounds like you're arguing we shouldn't hold comforting beliefs because, even if they are true, they might make us less productive. However, I think it is wiser to hold beliefs that are true, always. The reason is that it is, in general, far more valuable to hold correct beliefs than false ones. The fact that there are some special cases where holding false beliefs is better is useless, because there is no way to know when those cases are without first having correct beliefs. Further, Kurzweil has (obviously) never argued that it wouldn't take any effort to bring these technologies about. What he has argued is that we will put forth the effort to make them happen. If anything, it is rather discomforting to think about how much work is going to have to go into this.
Dn_Ab 15y ago
Could you go more into developing automation tools for biologists?

Dn_Ab 15y ago

Is there anything observed in the real world that is actually of exponential growth and not in fact logistic - affected by negative feedback effects? In an effectively finite universe continued exponential growth is impossible.