5 ms·

Most (all?) predictions about the future are dumb/naive. We either use linear or exponential extrapolation curves to imagine what's next, ignoring s-curves and

Most (all?) predictions about the future are dumb/naive. We either use linear or exponential extrapolation curves to imagine what's next, ignoring s-curves and even more importantly unforeseen events leading to discontinuities, gaps, reversal or stagnation. The success of the Appolo program had almost nothing in common with the discovery and colonization of the Americas by Europeans. Quantum computers and Fusion reactors have been predicted for decades. I don't think the idea of Ray Kurzweil's singularity is completely bullshit, we might reach a kind of technological singularity at some point, but it won't happen as predicted and I think it won't even be predictable.

tim333 4y ago
Kurzweil comes up with some wacky stuff but the core observation/prediction that the amount of compute you get for a dollar has kept going up and will probably keep on doing so a while, which is not a terribly far fetched prediction, has quite a lot of implications.
- stephc_int13 4y ago
  The observation is true, but the shape of the curve is not, and thus the implications are vastly different.
Valakas_ 4y ago
This is the point the vast majority of people miss. When we predict the future, we use, without noticing, a lot of things from our current reality and technological perception. This becomes really clear when you look at "future" predictions from past eras. People don't realize the future will have things that people now would mock them for, for being outrageous, ridiculous or far-fetched. Most predictions just use the technology of the time in a different way, or show something "impossible" based on current technology. To be able to predict the future, we have to completely lose a lot of mental baggage, and go for things that don't exist. We have to go back to the basics of what's actually possible. This is a reason i like Asimov's stories. We often writes in an abstract way, that leaves a lot of room for imagination. He definitely is still bound by technology perception, but often that also helps making stories more relatable. Example: Sometimes people predict the future where AI is so advanced, and we are fighting it to gain control over Earth. But they forget that an AI that would become sentient, contrary to us, could improve itself, its own intelligence. To the point where we would be as intelligent to them as an amoeba is intelligent to us. We can't even comprehend their IQ. This is such a radical shift from what we hold as normal, that most people just don't even register this possibility. Not their fault. Probably an education system focused on fact memorization and lack of critical thinking is partially responsible.

tim333 4y ago

Kurzweil comes up with some wacky stuff but the core observation/prediction that the amount of compute you get for a dollar has kept going up and will probably keep on doing so a while, which is not a terribly far fetched prediction, has quite a lot of implications.

stephc_int13 4y ago
The observation is true, but the shape of the curve is not, and thus the implications are vastly different.

Valakas_ 4y ago

This is the point the vast majority of people miss. When we predict the future, we use, without noticing, a lot of things from our current reality and technological perception. This becomes really clear when you look at "future" predictions from past eras. People don't realize the future will have things that people now would mock them for, for being outrageous, ridiculous or far-fetched. Most predictions just use the technology of the time in a different way, or show something "impossible" based on current technology. To be able to predict the future, we have to completely lose a lot of mental baggage, and go for things that don't exist. We have to go back to the basics of what's actually possible. This is a reason i like Asimov's stories. We often writes in an abstract way, that leaves a lot of room for imagination. He definitely is still bound by technology perception, but often that also helps making stories more relatable. Example: Sometimes people predict the future where AI is so advanced, and we are fighting it to gain control over Earth. But they forget that an AI that would become sentient, contrary to us, could improve itself, its own intelligence. To the point where we would be as intelligent to them as an amoeba is intelligent to us. We can't even comprehend their IQ. This is such a radical shift from what we hold as normal, that most people just don't even register this possibility. Not their fault. Probably an education system focused on fact memorization and lack of critical thinking is partially responsible.