Hacker News Reader

Comment by aetherson | Hacker News Reader

There are a lot of predictions in there that are either correct or kind of, "Well, I mean, sort of." But if you step back and look at the forest instead of the trees, it's clear that we are much less technologically advanced than Kurzweil expected.

This is a persistent failure of well-known futurists, probably because it's more interesting to predict rapid advances than slow ones.

View on HN

>This is a persistent failure of well-known futurists, probably because it's more interesting to predict rapid advances than slow ones.

Given his belief in a technological singularity, and the underlying assumption that infinite, exponential technological expansion is not only possible but inevitable, this shouldn't surprise anyone. All of his predictions are essentially religious prophecies of the coming of the Eschaton.

That said, if he’s right about the singularity we should cut him some slack on the exact dates. As Elon Musk frequently points out, a small variation in the timing of an S-curve can make huge differences in the value at specific dates.

I don't think that means cutting him some slack, that means that he shouldn't be so foolish as to make such specific claims about such specific timings.

Also, my impression of Kurzweil was that he didn't think in S-curves, but assumed technological progress follows an unbounded exponential curve - which is why he thinks he'll become immortal and bring his father back from the dead.

because it's more interesting to predict rapid advances than slow ones

I suspect it's more that futurists think in terms of our engineering efforts being poured primarily into things that advance humanity, rather than the adtech, porn, entertainment, and media innovations that our Idiocracy actually seeks to reward.

Kurzweil could have been more accurate, had humanity been more prone to species improvement than, say, ever more addictive social media apps and ever more entertaining and higher resolution Netflix marathons.

To be clear, I wasn't remarking on why futurists think the way they do, I was commenting on what makes someone a "well-known" futurist.

The Age of Spiritual Machines is a catchier title and more interesting book than The Age of Cell Phones That Are Mostly Screen and You Can Call A Taxi With Them. There are plenty of people out there peddling much more luke-warm futures than Kurzweil; they just don't become well-known because safe, conservative predictions aren't that interesting.

Kurzweil has a vested interest in wanting to see things move along quickly, given his plan to live forever. It must be frustrating for him to see technological progress slowed down by social forces, but in my opinion it's the better way. There's no way human society could move forward without complete collapse at the pace that Kurzweil predicted.

Agree - this article is pretty underwhelming. Rodney Brooks seems like the only person who knows how to write an article like this that delivers.

People want to believe we are capable of anything as humans

A depressing thought I've had is that maybe we will reach a point where we can go no further due to biological limitations. Think about monkeys, they have primitive tools but are effectively stagnant.

It's an objective fact our progress has slowed

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601199/tech-slowdown-thre...

A monkey can't understand advanced mathematics. What if there are certain things about physics and the universe humans will never be able to grasp because we are simply too stupid as a species?

This is why most futurist narratives involve post-human technologically augmented people.

can we advance far enough to get an understanding of our biology to augment it?

"AI" in its current form is like a child trying to make a car through imitation

I think we'll have to CRISPR ourselves smarter before we can really go full cybernetic augmentation

Reply on news.ycombinator.com