Hacker News Reader

Comment by scared_together | Hacker News Reader

> The prediction was early, overestimated how long of a tail RIM would experience, but how wrong was it? Was the prediction of some utility?

Wrong enough that the utility is seriously diminished. Predicting a specific quantity dropping to a specific level at a specific date is a lot more valuable than saying “those guys are cooked”.

And even if some minuscule utility existed: why should predictors be so coddled by their observers? We should be demanding more rigour from predictors rather than looking for new and creative ways to forgive them for their folly.

View on HN

I think this is a legit read about the utility.

> why should predictors be so coddled by their observers?

I suppose that in the RIM example the predictor correctly identified causes and concerns. The timelines are off. But highlighting the causes are interesting to me, as a datapoint.

If someone says "hey there's a problem here", you can somewhat independently look at the problem and validate its seriousness on your end.

Some people in this thread are like "well the value is in the prediction", but from my perspective I'm thinking "the value is in the causal analysis". Because if you merely think the timelines are wrong you can easily just change numbers around.

Obviously Zitron is not "always right", and isn't getting all causal analysis right IMO. I do think he's bringing up things though.

If the causal analysis is the real value, then it could be presented without a prediction, or at least without a specific prediction.

In 2024, if Ed Zitron presented all his analysis of AI companies without the specific “model capabilities have peaked this year” style statements that Dan Luu scrutinized, that would be more honest and provide the value you are looking for.

Similarly for the RIM example nobody would have to claim that RIM would fail in a particular year, or that “RIM is cooked”, they could present their data about the present without any projection.

> Predicting a specific quantity dropping to a specific level at a specific date is a lot more valuable than saying “those guys are cooked”.

It's also way harder, and the added value isn't that great, if you're not interested in playing the stock market.

As an example, explaining why the 2008 crisis was structurally bound to happen is probably more valuable to a policymaker than knowing whether it would start in august or september.

The added value other than the stock market would be in making major life decisions.

In the case of the 2008 crisis, specific knowledge of the timing could matter for buying or selling a house.

In the case of technological predictions, specific knowledge of the timing could affect whether you want to take a university program in a given field or join a certain company.

If a predictor can’t help with picking stocks or making big decisions, then what are these predictions for, entertainment? Actually an HN comment on Dan Luu’s post about futurists really did suggest that futurists are practically entertainers.

If you're starting a 4 year degree, whether the bubble bursts tomorrow or 6 years from now isn't that important: what's important is whether you want to start a degree in the bubble's field.

Likewise if you're signing a 30 year mortgage, knowing vaguely that the housing market is precarious is still valuable even if you don't know if it'll collapse tomorrow or in 6 years: you'll be on the hook either way if you sign today

> If a predictor can’t help with picking stocks or making big decisions, then what are these predictions for, entertainment?

Not sure how you constructed that specific sentence from my message.

My point was that most big decisions aren't that sensitive to small timing changes, like stock market can be. Your examples highlight that point: few would change their university choices depending on the knowledge that a future event will happen one year earlier or later.

> Not sure how you constructed that specific sentence from my message.

Fair enough, I didn’t.

> most big decisions aren't that sensitive to small timing changes

That makes sense for a single year at least.

RIM is dying now -> useful for stock trading

RIM is dying in the next four years -> useful for life planning.

Anyway, i just wanna get on record that i predict an ai bubble pop event in the next 12 months.

> Anyway, i just wanna get on record that i predict an ai bubble pop event in the next 12 months.

If it happens on Sep 2nd 2027 you'd be wrong though.

Next 12 months: Oct 2026, Nov 2026, Dec 2026, Jan 2027, Feb 2027, Mar 2027, Apr 2027, May 2027, Jun 2027, Jul 2027, Aug 2027, Sep 2027.

So, if we're being pedantic, I'm not wrong until Oct 1st 2027 or later. But I'm also wrong if it happens this month ;)

> Anyway, i just wanna get on record that i predict an ai bubble pop event in the next 12 months.

Certainly possible, but I feel like you're very much going out on a limb predicting anything that soon. The market can stay irrational for a surprisingly long time if there's enough money floating around.

But I would be stunned if we don't have an AI bubble pop sometime in the next decade.

Utility for investors i guess sure, but for people that aren't investors, it mattered much less when RIM went under than that they still did.

> why should predictors be so coddled by their observers?

Because prediction is hard and no one is so good at it that they won't make errors like that.

They’ll never get better if not held accountable.

They haven't got better when held accountable, but you dissuaded further predictions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com