3 ms·

If you grade what was linked by whether it is "approximately achievable today", and not some less interesting metric like being predicted for the correct year o

by Veedrac 1mo ago

If you grade what was linked by whether it is "approximately achievable today", and not some less interesting metric like being predicted for the correct year or if it was outcompeted by some other thing, he's closer to 70-90% depending on how close you're willing to grade. It's very easy to say 'person X made a highly specific testable prediction, while respectable people said nothing like it would ever happen, and it only 90% happened, so person X was a fool unlike all the respectable people', but it's a trap. In reality Kurzweil was directionally correct about most things, overspecified the details, and had optimistic timelines in the way that everyone has optimistic timelines about everything.

retsibsi 1mo ago
> while respectable people said nothing like it would ever happen Can you give some examples of predictions he got roughly right where this applies? (Not a gotcha, I'm genuinely interested, because this is the key for me when thinking about whether to give credit for 'close' or 'right but early' predictions. If you're predicting things that most others have dismissed as impossible, or nobody has even thought of, then it's pretty impressive and interesting when you turn out be even roughly correct. (I'll still ding your credibility if you are overconfident about dates and details, but I'll do that while paying plenty of attention to what you say next.) If you're predicting things that are already suspected to be possible, though, and what makes you stand out is your confidence and your timelines, then I'm not going to be very interested when some of your predictions turn out to be fairly close to the truth.)
- Veedrac 1mo ago
  Here's a sample of 10, drawn randomly: 2020-2050: Phone calls entail three-dimensional holographic images of both people. This is totally possible. We could even do it on phones with fairly mundane consumer technology. We can do it with glasses, even. People just don't care. The prediction has yet to land but in spirit is correct. Centuries hence: Computer intelligence becomes superior to human intelligence in all areas. Anyone doubting that this will be true within centuries is nuts. 2009: People can talk to their computer to give commands. At most a couple years early in technicality, and in spirit over a decade early. 2009: Computer displays built into eyeglasses for augmented reality are used. True today, if not a particularly popular product, and later than suggested. 2009: A $1,000 computer can perform a trillion calculations per second. Definitely true today. I think this was basically on time, too. 2019: Most people own more than one PC, though "computer" no longer means laptop or box-plus-monitor. Freebie. 2019: Most learning is via adaptive courseware presented by computer-simulated teachers; human adults are counselors and mentors, not instructors. We obviously could do this today, though it might not be a great idea for the students. Early, and socially blind, but basically right about possibility. 2019: Prototype personal flying vehicles using microflaps exist, primarily computer-controlled. Basically wrong. There are eVTOL companies aiming for this, and people do have camera drones, but the sense it was meant wasn't predictive. 2019: Human-robot relationships begin as simulated personalities become more convincing. Early, subscale, and fought against by providers, but this is a thing. 2029: Massively parallel neural nets constructed by reverse-engineering the human brain are in common use. Ok people will mob me for saying this, but this was more right than wrong. Definitely at least a bit wrong.

by Veedrac 1mo ago

retsibsi 1mo ago

> while respectable people said nothing like it would ever happen Can you give some examples of predictions he got roughly right where this applies? (Not a gotcha, I'm genuinely interested, because this is the key for me when thinking about whether to give credit for 'close' or 'right but early' predictions. If you're predicting things that most others have dismissed as impossible, or nobody has even thought of, then it's pretty impressive and interesting when you turn out be even roughly correct. (I'll still ding your credibility if you are overconfident about dates and details, but I'll do that while paying plenty of attention to what you say next.) If you're predicting things that are already suspected to be possible, though, and what makes you stand out is your confidence and your timelines, then I'm not going to be very interested when some of your predictions turn out to be fairly close to the truth.)

Veedrac 1mo ago
Here's a sample of 10, drawn randomly: 2020-2050: Phone calls entail three-dimensional holographic images of both people. This is totally possible. We could even do it on phones with fairly mundane consumer technology. We can do it with glasses, even. People just don't care. The prediction has yet to land but in spirit is correct. Centuries hence: Computer intelligence becomes superior to human intelligence in all areas. Anyone doubting that this will be true within centuries is nuts. 2009: People can talk to their computer to give commands. At most a couple years early in technicality, and in spirit over a decade early. 2009: Computer displays built into eyeglasses for augmented reality are used. True today, if not a particularly popular product, and later than suggested. 2009: A $1,000 computer can perform a trillion calculations per second. Definitely true today. I think this was basically on time, too. 2019: Most people own more than one PC, though "computer" no longer means laptop or box-plus-monitor. Freebie. 2019: Most learning is via adaptive courseware presented by computer-simulated teachers; human adults are counselors and mentors, not instructors. We obviously could do this today, though it might not be a great idea for the students. Early, and socially blind, but basically right about possibility. 2019: Prototype personal flying vehicles using microflaps exist, primarily computer-controlled. Basically wrong. There are eVTOL companies aiming for this, and people do have camera drones, but the sense it was meant wasn't predictive. 2019: Human-robot relationships begin as simulated personalities become more convincing. Early, subscale, and fought against by providers, but this is a thing. 2029: Massively parallel neural nets constructed by reverse-engineering the human brain are in common use. Ok people will mob me for saying this, but this was more right than wrong. Definitely at least a bit wrong.