A course in “exponential thinking” at Singularity University lures executives | Hacker News Reader

A course in “exponential thinking” at Singularity University lures executives

technologyreview.com

44 pointst2329 comments

Diamandis took the stage to tell the class that the key to understanding the future is to realize that technology is set to make things such as energy, food, health care, and Internet access abundant and cheap. -- from the article

"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter... It is not too much to expect that our children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age." -- Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1954

U.S. health care expenditures have steadily increased as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) over the last half century, increasing from 5.0 percent of GDP in 1960 to 17.4 percent in 2013. [0]

Food spending is down though. From about 15% to 5% of family disposable income during the same period[1]. Some people say this is directly related to increased health care costs.

Loving the idea of cheap solar. Just hope the externalities don't drive up the price of those other things mentioned. [2]

[0] https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Sta...

[1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/Food_Expenditures...

[2] https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-negative-externalities-as...

I also always think of that AEC quote when reading blue-sky future predictions. That said,

>that our children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history

With the exception of countries under oppressive regimes like the DPRK, isn't this mostly true today? In 2003 the NYT published an article asking "Does Democracy Avert Famine?", referring to a relatively recent Ethiopian famine as being preventable by adequate societal oversight [0]. Last year, they published "Is The Era of Great Famines Over?", referring to a drought in Ethiopia that did not trigger a widespread famine as it did in 1993 (which is the famine referred to in the first article).[1]

[0]http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/01/arts/does-democracy-avert-... [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/opinion/is-the-era-of-gre...

Do they go over the fact that almost every phenomenon that is viewed to be exponential at the time is actually logistic (sigmoidal) given enough time?

Edit:

From the article: 'Several times a year it admits groups of executives for a $14,000, weeklong course in “exponential leadership”—and an invigorating dose of Silicon Valley Kool-Aid.'

Pretty close.

Only the exponential phase is relevant, because you cash out midway through

A few thoughts:

1) 90 executives, $14,000 dollars... that's $1.2 million!

2) "Brexit and the election of President Trump are the symptoms of society’s preference to cling to the past rather than engage with the challenge of making the most of the future, says Nail." That's a rather naive view of what's going on in the world right now.

> "Brexit and the election of President Trump are the symptoms of society’s preference to cling to the past rather than engage with the challenge of making the most of the future, says Nail." That's a rather naive view of what's going on in the world right now.

How so? It strikes me as pretty accurate.

It's economically naive to think that "people clinging to the past" is somehow the root cause of Brexit and Trump. Why do people cling to the past? It's usually because they feel uncertainty around something in the present and foreseeable future. And for many who cast their vote in favor of these dubious causes, the present was materially bad enough for them, whether through unemployment, stagnating wages, or pay cuts, to take the chance.

In our bubble where we work in tech with stable, high-paying jobs, health insurance, and benefits, these people look hopelessly provincial. But it was by ignoring or dismissing them in the first place that Brexit and Trump were allowed to happen.

> And for many who cast their vote in favor of these dubious causes, the present was materially bad enough for them, whether through unemployment, stagnating wages, or pay cuts, to take the chance.

That's largely a false narrative though. Trump's support was much stronger among wealthy whites in areas that were doing relatively better than most of the nation economically.

They didn't like the way the future was being made (no voice and no dignity. Coastal elites controlling the wealth of the nation.)

Fundamentally Brexit and Trump are symptoms of a rejection of free-market liberalism as a good idea for the future of the world. People like localism. They like work. People are hungry for a good future. It's certainly not being offered to them by some google-glass Orwellian world ruled by silicon valley and wall street.

People rejected Kurzeil and Nail and the people attending this course. But they didn't reject the challenge of making the most of the future.

Can you say more about why you think that? I've been thinking about basically permanent future shock being a major cause of where we've ended up but I'm all ears for why that's not true. Seems like lots of people wanting to go back to the past to me.

If people feel they have no future, and the present has nothing for them, only one time domain remains to provide shelter.

> That's a rather naive view of what's going on in the world right now.

Is it? Did you watch the inauguration with all of its cheesy old-old-school references? Make what 'again?'

Classic example of pseudo-intellectual philosophical word-salad disguised as science.

Yep. The CEO of Singularity University was on NPR here in SF yesterday and I could barely stomach it. He sounded like a tech bro Deepak Chopra.

I took intro to psych from Eugene Galanter in 2000 or 2001. He liked to lecture on how the only point of taking an MBA is to unlearn the natural tendency to perceive magnitde as a log fn of magnitude. Now we are teaching MBAs the opposite, to apply a power law to every perceived trend or opportunity...

  the only point of taking an MBA is to unlearn the natural tendency to perceive magnitde as a log fn of magnitude

Interesting. Anything to read about it?

This is the best I could find on the web. Unfortunately Galanter published in an era when everything was paywalled. I've had a lot of trouble finding blog-worthy writing of his, although his lecture is one of the few that I remember from undergrad years...

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-010-2245-3...

Maybe not exactly what you are looking for, but there's this classic series of videos from a math professor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOykY2SMbZ0

He claims, and probably rightly so, that people don't think in exponentials and therefore makes awfully wrong statements and predictions.

A friend attended one of these. Was a good networking opertunity for her. I think it ended up being worth the price of admission for getting those new relationships.

Wow, paying $14K a pop so someone can "disrupt their current ways of thinking". My hand could disrupt the side of their face for far less. These people live in another world. I guess this is pocket change for them.

You could also use the back side of your hand to disrupt Chris Anderson, the owner of TED, right? They charge $8,500/person. The one in '17 has already sold out those tickets, and so they are charging $17,000/person. At the 'standard' price- assuming the usual 1,500 people- TED takes in a minimum of $12.75 million. Then there are the revenues for TED Summit, TED Women, TEDx, etc. etc. They also strongly suggest the fellows (speakers) give Chris Anderson a standing ovation. None of the fellows get paid, as far as I know. I am not suggesting there should be cash compensation.

I can't wait for these guys to go back to their companies and lecturing their workers on disrupting their thinking. Very inspirational.

so, after taking such a course our VP should see it as a natural thing the exponential growth of the bug log...

The article is much more straightforward reporting on the class than the title led me to believe, but it still made me laugh cynically: "For $14,000, a Weeklong Firehose of Silicon Valley Kool-Aid"

Every time I read an article like this it really affirms my decision to live in New York City.

I live in the Bay Area and the course sounds as absurd to me. But the weather's nice here ^^

> Futurist and Stanford professor Paul Saffo looked out over a mostly male, mostly affluent-looking audience...

I like when an article lets me know I can stop reading after the first sentence.

It's healthy and prudent to learn about and from people who are different from yourself. If nothing else, one can gain better insight into the information that a person is exposed to, that they seek out and prefer, and the decisions and rationale for those decisions.

Which can then inform your own efforts and decisions.

You'll learn far more having a two-minute conversation with someone whose viewpoint is different vs. reading an article in the MIT Technology Review.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com