3 ms·
Ask PG: Is Ray Kurzweil full of shit?
I've noticed that few other topics spark as much acrimony and mudslinging on HN as Ray Kurzweil and the Singularity -- maybe it's worse when the libertarian and liberal wings of HN go at it, or the ongoing "language wars" flare up, but that's about it.
Ray seems to have a pretty impressive list of supporters - Marvin Minsky, Larry Page, Bill Gates, Dean Kamen, Peter Norvig, Rafael Reif, Tomaso Poggio, Stephen Wolfram, Dileep George, etc. - and some high-profile detractors - Hofstadter, Kevin Kelly, Mitch Kapor, Gary Marcus, and Paul Allen.
Personally, I think a lot of his conclusions are probably inevitable in the long term - say 100 years out - but I'd guess that his timelines may be too optimistic to benefit any of us here personally. It's also hard to ignore the parallels between the Singularity and religious belief, and how that might betray wishful thinking on the part of its adherents.
Anyway, I just thought it would be interesting to hear your take on it.
- keiferski 14y agoI'm not as bothered by his predictions as I am by his blinding, religious-like devotion to their results. I would take him more seriously if he focused more on the science and less on some pseudo-technocrat-religion.
- jacques_chester 14y ago1. Notice that Ray Kurzweil mentions provoke flamewars. 2. Ask if Kurzweil is "full of shit". 3. Make sure to work "Ask PG" into the title, that's always good for a handful of upvotes. Where're the reddit "TrollympicsJudge" novelty accounts when you need them?
- DannyBee 14y agoHonestly, this is a pretty poor troll. This would have been better as a subtle troll, instead it's just karma-whoring, so it won't do as well. Trolling is a art
- rpm4321 14y agoDid you even read my comment? I'm genuinely very interested in PG's take on this, and it was inspired by a protracted debate from earlier today: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5003916 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5003916 Also, in my opinion "full of shit" accurately reflects the opinion of the majority of the anti-Kurzweil people on HN. It's an example of the sort of middlebrow dismissal that typifies a lot of the comments at the link above. That's what I'm trying to get at - whether HN really thinks Kurzweil deserves these sorts of knee-jerk, absolutist reactions, one way or the other. Personally, I think the ideas are serious and deserve some thought and consideration. As I mentioned above, I'm fairly sympathetic to them long-term, but a bit skeptical short-term. The headline is also obviously a bit of an attention getter, sure, but I'm certainly not a Karma Farma'.
- jacques_chester 14y agoI don't believe you. Quite sincerely. I don't believe you.
- rpm4321 14y agoYeah, because it's perfectly logical that I would engage in a multi-thousand word, multi-month debate: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4923914 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4923914 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5003916 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5003916 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4791558 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4791558 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4851307 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4851307 all as preamble in my master plot to... ??? wait, what is it exactly you're accusing me of again? "Trolling"? - or was I just after those whopping 7 karma points this whole time? In all seriousness, I've wanted to post this Ask PG for a long time, and I used the debate from the article earlier today as an excuse to write it. I've read pretty much every word both Kurzweil and PG have ever written, but they've never really crossed paths as far as I'm aware. PG's a very pragmatic, no-nonsense, deep thinker, and my guess is he'd be skeptical, but it's too bad this post didn't take off because I really would have loved to read his take on it. Maybe I should have said 'full of crap' or 'full of it'. Didn't mean to offend your virgin eyes. ;) PG-13 titled posts are nothing new to HN, so I really didn't think I'd be making waves.
- jacques_chester 14y agoI generally don't plumb people's comment histories. Your post fit the half-decent troll template perfectly. Controversial topic: check. Used inflammatory language: check. Had some half-reasonable-sounding stuff too: check. Mentioned high-profile participant by name: check. I'm glad to learn that you were a false positive. But, given the same prima facie facts again, I'd make the same judgement again.
- rpm4321 14y agoHey jacques_chester, fair enough. It obviously wasn't only you who assumed that, because unfortunately the post was flagged. In retrospect it was obviously the S word that did me in, but it really didn't seem out of line compared to the dozens of very popular, slightly-NSFW titles I've seen on HN over the years. Anyway, I've reposted it with a safer title in case you want to chime in on the debate. Hopefully it takes off again because I really would love to hear PG's take on the whole thing: news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006328 Boy, I don't remember ever seeing a comment war escalate and de-escalate so quickly. Maybe there's hope for the Middle East after all. ;)