65 replies to this topic

[Singularity2045]

Hi all, I sent this question to Ray Kurzweil and I still hope that he will reply.

My question is regarding to a lecture that Ray gave in the year 2000 at the 2000 ACM SIGGRAPH conference in New Orleans:

http://www.kurzweila.....141.html?m=10


In that lecture Ray gave 2 very interesting comments -

1. "But, let's talk about, first, ten years from now, or eight or nine years from now. First of all, computers will disappear"

2. "By 2009, we'll have full immersion visual and auditory virtual reality"


Well, now we are almost in the year 2009, and it really doesn't looks realistic that in the next year, or even in the next 2-3 years, we will Not have a anymore desktop PC computers like the one that I'm using now, or that we will have a full immersion visual and auditory virtual reality. This things are still looks so far away although that Ray predicted that we will allready have them TODAY....

I'm really not attacking or criticize him, but I really want to understand that, becouse if he (as it looks in this examples) failed in predicting the so near future (He gave the lecture in the year 2000) then how should I refer to his predictions for 35 years from now?

Thanks!
Dan.

[Richard Leis]

It looks like it has only been delayed for a few years. The middle of next decade may see the beginning of the "great vanishing" of consumer electronics as their capabilities enter our bodies, based on the size of current CE, miniaturization technology, and laboratory machine/biology interfaces. Trying to plot when these innovations will reach critical mass is difficult, even five years out. I'm surprised Kurzweil has been as close as he has been.

[Singularity2045]

But It doesn't looks realistic to me that even in the next 5-6 years people will stop using desktop PC computers in their home and in their work places, so again, I'm just thinking to myself, if Ray Kurzweil has missed so much with his predictions for the NEAR future, then How can we trust his refers for the FAR away future, in about 35 years from now?

I know that he was right once with his prediction for computers winning human in chess game, but I don't know, maybe he just gave so many predictions about all kind of things that will be in the future, and statisticly, some of them where right?

[RighteousReason]

But It doesn't looks realistic to me that even in the next 5-6 years people will stop using desktop PC computers in their home and in their work places, so again, I'm just thinking to myself, if Ray Kurzweil has missed so much with his predictions for the NEAR future, then How can we trust his refers for the FAR away future, in about 35 years from now?

I know that he was right once with his prediction for computers winning human in chess game, but I don't know, maybe he just gave so many predictions about all kind of things that will be in the future, and statisticly, some of them where right?

I wouldn't put a penny on Kurzweil's predictions.

What is the Singularity?
1. http://singinst.org/...sthesingularity
2. http://sss.stanford....thesingularity/
3. http://www.accelerat...-singularity-2/

"The Singularity has nothing to do with the acceleration of technological progress." - Michael Anissimov (link 3)

[Richard Leis]

I think it is pretty clear that desktop computers are on the way out. They are being outsold by laptops and smart phones and are increasingly integrated into televisions and media centers. Personally, the next desktop computer I buy next summer will probably be my last. My desktop and laptop have become something of an afterthought at home while I spend much more time with my iPhone. At work, I still depend on my desktop and laptop, but many of my tasks could be handled on my iPhone (if only I could convince our tech guys to start building for the iPhone!)

I'm not saying that in 5 years desktops will be gone. All I am suggesting is that the trends are clear. Whenever it happens, it is obviously happening. Kurzweil is off, but maybe that is because the future has become more complex than his original thoughts on the topic. We cannot expect him to have foreseen everything, but we can expect that his general trends are intact and that his central premise remains compelling.

[Futurist1000]

I think of Kurzweil more as an innovative genius and idea generator as opposed to someone who is very realistic about the future.

It's utterly laughable to think that progress will continue to accelerate in all technological areas. Eventually you run up into a wall technologically and further output becomes impossible. Plus his predictions are usually based on unrealistic fantasy style expectation of what he thinks people would do in the future. He doesn't seem to understand that just because something COULD be done, doesn't mean that it WILL be done.

In the singularity is near, he has a section entitled "Get Eighty trillions dollars". Really silly stuff.
See singularity.

Interesting stuff, all right, but what’s the connection to investing? One section (pp. 96-108) of Mr. Kurzweil’s book bears the enticing heading, “Get Eighty Trillion Dollars—Limited Time Only,” with the claim that “You will get eighty trillion dollars just by reading this section and understanding what it says.” Mr. Kurzweil explains how the law of accelerating returns is fundamentally an economic theory, and how the world’s economy is continuing to accelerate, with productivity (economic output per worker) growing exponentially. Specifically, with regard to stock prices:

“. . . [P]resent stock prices are based on future expectations. Given that the (literally) short-sighted linear intuitive view represents the ubiquitous outlook, the common wisdom in economic expectations is dramatically understated. Since stock prices reflect the consensus of a buyer-seller market, the prices reflect the underlying linear assumption that most people share regarding future economic growth. But the law of accelerating returns clearly implies that the growth rate will continue to grow exponentially, because the rate of progress will continue to accelerate.”

By this he's saying that economic progress should accelerate.

He tries to explain the real performance away in this article.

You talk a lot about exponential growth, including the stock market. But the Dow Jones Industrial Average was around 1,300 points higher in 2000 than it is now. Adjust for the cost of trades and real inflation and you might have lost 6 to 7 percent a year, no?
Kurzweil: It's the power and adoption of information technologies that moves exponentially. The stock market includes many businesses with old business models...You do have long-term exponential growth of the stock market. The measures we find are highly predictable, surprisingly so. But there are business cycles.

Edited by hrc579, 10 October 2008 - 08:12 PM.

[Arie]

But It doesn't looks realistic to me that even in the next 5-6 years people will stop using desktop PC computers in their home and in their work places, so again, I'm just thinking to myself, if Ray Kurzweil has missed so much with his predictions for the NEAR future, then How can we trust his refers for the FAR away future, in about 35 years from now?

.
You are not the only one doubting the timeframe of his predictions.
I certainly think bulky desktops will be out of style in 5 years though. We use mainly wireless laptops and netbooks in our household nowadays, i use my desktop only for storage or big projects. There's no point in keeping chunky towers on your table when all you need fits in a matchbox.

Talking about bad timing, he's got 2 upcoming movies at a time the global financial system is collapsing and everybody's afraid of a new great depression. Not exactly a good time to ask people to believe that unlimited abundance is just on the horizon.

I know that he was right once with his prediction for computers winning human in chess game, but I don't know, maybe he just gave so many predictions about all kind of things that will be in the future, and statisticly, some of them where right?

Yeah perhaps, it's the same way faith healers or astrologists work.
But keep in mind there is sound logic in the stuff Kurzweil is predicting. And it's not that he's the only one, i would say he stole most of his ideas from other thinkers. But the main problem is that he's too optimistic about the time necessary to fully exploit technological possibilities. Yes, this might mean humanlevel artificial intelligence will arrive some decades later than he predicts.
I mean, it wouldn't be too difficult nowadays to develop matchbox-sized PC's controlled by continous-speech and VR-goggles with full-HD resolution, all wireless connected, but as long as the computer industry thinks such ideas are too risky and all consumers want is more of the same, i guess it's not going to happen.

[Richard Leis]

And it's not that he's the only one, i would say he stole most of his ideas from other thinkers.

Leadership and Navigators are trying very hard to explain to commentators in the Politics & Law forum that personal and ad hominem attacks, among other techniques, have no place in reasonable discourse. This applies not only to the commentators themselves, but the people they are talking about.

The above quote is a serious allegation and potential libel against Kurzweil. Please support your statement with properly referenced resources or retract it.

[Luna]

I will not trade my desktop until laptops will have bigger monitors, stronger graphics card or at least ones who match desktops, cheaper price and light enough after all the previous requests were fulfilled.

Most gamers and graphics users will say the same.

Edited by Winterbreeze, 12 October 2008 - 04:38 AM.

[RighteousReason]

And it's not that he's the only one, i would say he stole most of his ideas from other thinkers.

Leadership and Navigators are trying very hard to explain to commentators in the Politics & Law forum that personal and ad hominem attacks, among other techniques, have no place in reasonable discourse. This applies not only to the commentators themselves, but the people they are talking about.

The above quote is a serious allegation and potential libel against Kurzweil. Please support your statement with properly referenced resources or retract it.

Defensive a little bit?

...hahaha

Edited by Savage, 12 October 2008 - 05:02 AM.

[Mind]

I think Kurzweil's predictions have been pretty good so far. I can envision many of the things he predicted. Computers are getting smaller. Full immersion auditory and visual virtual reality is pretty close. What I can't figure out is why there are so many Kurzweil haters out there. My personal opinion is that there are a lot of jealous people. People who resent Kurzweil for being successful, for getting all the press, and for getting it right (most of the time). It is extremely easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. There is nothing special or particularly smart/ambitious about that. It takes guts to stick your neck out and make predictions.

Even though I think the U.S. government is setting us back a few years with its spending and inflationary monetary policy (both parties to blame), productivity gains are still happening, technological progress continues, medical research has not stopped. The bubble has popped but progress continues.

Also, desktops are on the way out. The data is clear. I know I won't be buying another desktop (that is unless I buy a dedicated folding rig - go team, yay!).

[Ben]

Just a point but the current economic crises and the money that America is throwing away into Iraq everyday are probably going to forestall these predictions.

[Luna]

Kurzweil haters is indeed a growing trends it seems.

But this is the human nature.

[Arie]

The above quote is a serious allegation and potential libel against Kurzweil. Please support your statement with properly referenced resources or retract it.

Would it make you happier if i rephrased the sentence to 'i would say Kurzweil is heavily influenced by other thinkers'.
You know that Kurzweil didn't invent the idea of the Singularity or even accelerating change. von Neumann and Vinge were speculating about these things ages ago. Damien Broderick wrote a book about the Singularity years before Kurzweil. Hans Moravec was making timelines for reaching the computing power of the human brain way before Kurzweil. Arthur Clarke was theorizing about Virtual Reality as early as 1949. People like Feynmann and Drexler came up with the idea of mass manufacturing through nanotechnlology, indeed the 'nanobots' and 'respirocytes' Kurzweil is touting endlessly in the media are Eric Drexler's ideas.

What Kurzweil does well is popularizing all these 'fringe' ideas to a mainstream public that respects him because of his accomplishments as an inventor, synthesizing it into one grand transhumanist vision. His own research is limited mainly to discovering technological trends and plotting them on a logarithmic scale to prove exponential progress, and making specific controversial predictions based on these models.

Just to be clear, it was what I thought was an unfounded allegation I had trouble with, not the rest of your post. Like his ideas or not, I think discussing Kurzweil and the Singularity are useful exercises, as long as the discourse remains polite and well-referenced.

[Luna]

The above quote is a serious allegation and potential libel against Kurzweil. Please support your statement with properly referenced resources or retract it.

Would it make you happier if i rephrased the sentence to 'i would say Kurzweil is heavily influenced by other thinkers'.
You know that Kurzweil didn't invent the idea of the Singularity or even accelerating change. von Neumann and Vinge were speculating about these things ages ago. Damien Broderick wrote a book about the Singularity years before Kurzweil. Hans Moravec was making timelines for reaching the computing power of the human brain way before Kurzweil. Arthur Clarke was theorizing about Virtual Reality as early as 1949. People like Feynmann and Drexler came up with the idea of mass manufacturing through nanotechnlology, indeed the 'nanobots' and 'respirocytes' Kurzweil is touting endlessly in the media are Eric Drexler's ideas.

What Kurzweil does well is popularizing all these 'fringe' ideas to a mainstream public that respects him because of his accomplishments as an inventor, synthesizing it into one grand transhumanist vision. His own research is limited mainly to discovering technological trends and plotting them on a logarithmic scale to prove exponential progress, and making specific controversial predictions based on these models.

Do you invent everything you use?
No. If Kurzweil simply looks around him and says what HE concludes by LOOKING at OTHER PEOPLE'S work that is just fine because this is his job.

[Ben]

The above quote is a serious allegation and potential libel against Kurzweil. Please support your statement with properly referenced resources or retract it.

Would it make you happier if i rephrased the sentence to 'i would say Kurzweil is heavily influenced by other thinkers'.
You know that Kurzweil didn't invent the idea of the Singularity or even accelerating change. von Neumann and Vinge were speculating about these things ages ago. Damien Broderick wrote a book about the Singularity years before Kurzweil. Hans Moravec was making timelines for reaching the computing power of the human brain way before Kurzweil. Arthur Clarke was theorizing about Virtual Reality as early as 1949. People like Feynmann and Drexler came up with the idea of mass manufacturing through nanotechnlology, indeed the 'nanobots' and 'respirocytes' Kurzweil is touting endlessly in the media are Eric Drexler's ideas.

What Kurzweil does well is popularizing all these 'fringe' ideas to a mainstream public that respects him because of his accomplishments as an inventor, synthesizing it into one grand transhumanist vision. His own research is limited mainly to discovering technological trends and plotting them on a logarithmic scale to prove exponential progress, and making specific controversial predictions based on these models.

Do you invent everything you use?
No. If Kurzweil simply looks around him and says what HE concludes by LOOKING at OTHER PEOPLE'S work that is just fine because this is his job.

No. If Kurzweil was to say that these ideas are his then Arie would be correct in saying that he has stolen other people's ideas or has plagerised them (passing another person's work off as your own). I believe that he has never stated this therefore he is not a plagerist and Arie's comment is invalid.

Oh and Arie pay carefull attention. This statement of yours:

"And it's not that he's the only one, i would say he stole most of his ideas from other thinkers",


is completely different from this one:

"i would say Kurzweil is heavily influenced by other thinkers".


You are obviously not aware of the difference and subsequently some people here have perhaps misinterpreted what I believe you were trying to convey.

[Arie]

Heheh english is not my native language so perhaps i should have said that he borrowed most of his Big Ideas from other people.
Ofcourse i do not accuse him of showing off the work of others as his own.

[forever freedom]

Of course no one is going to get all his predictions right, and i think kurzweil has been spot on on many predictions, although there is a delay of a few years on most of them. I think that the vast majority of his predictions will (and have so far!) come true, with a delay of one or two decades at most.

[Richard Leis]

Defensive a little bit?

...hahaha

I'm not defensive about Kurzweil; his predictions and theories are questionable and up for critique. I am defensive about reasonable discourse. I do not think personal attacks, unfounded allegations, and other questionable writing techniques are useful in any debate, argument, or discourse.

[Richard Leis]

Would it make you happier if i rephrased the sentence to 'i would say Kurzweil is heavily influenced by other thinkers'.

I do like that statement better. Just to be clear, it was what I thought was an unfounded allegation I had trouble with, not the rest of your post. Like his ideas or not, I think discussing Kurzweil and the Singularity are useful exercises, as long as the discourse remains polite and well-referenced.

[advancedatheist]

Kurzweil reminds me of the inventor Nikola Tesla in his decline. Tesla had some solid innovations to this name in his youth, but in his later years he had trouble financing his less fruitful ideas for inventions because some of his projects turned out badly and wasted a lot of his backers' money. So Telsa would collar every reporter he met and tell him about the death rays, wireless power and armies of robots he could build if only someone would give him a blank check.

Naturally that turned Tesla into a celebrity inventor and media figure, even though he couldn't deliver on his predictions about the future of technology.

I don't think Kurzweil has taken this turn because he wants investors to put up money for his projects. Instead I suspect he wants some encores for the successes he had earlier in life, but he can't yet reach the high-lying fruit with current technology because he knows he won't live long enough.

[Richard Leis]

So we are all on the same page, Eliezer Yudkowsky defines three different schools of Singularity thought:

• Kurzweil's Accelerating Change
• Vinge's Event Horizon
• I.J. Good's Intelligence Explosion

Each has different implications and consequences. For example, Kurzweil's Singularity is nearly inevitable while Vinge's Singularity is not necessarily inevitable.

Michael Anissimov has written about his disapproval of using "Singularity" to mean convergence through accelerating change. The Technological Singularity instead was Vinge's idea that with the advent of greater-than-human-level intelligence the human era would be ended. Because the same word is being used to describe very different futures, Anissimov has suggested a name change for Vinge's Technological Singularity. In discussion, I tend to precede "Singularity" with the founder of the particular school of thought I am referencing.

Personally, I lean toward the Kurzweillian Singularity despite the Vingian Singularity being my exciting introduction to these ideas back in the mid-90s. AGI has a role to play, even a very significant role, but not the only role, in my opinion. I also think that the Kurzweillian Singularity is all but inevitable. Technological progress and convergence appear to be following some basic Laws of Information that we do not understand yet. We see a correlation but no causation, which only reflects our current level of knowledge.

Make no mistake, the advent of greater-than-human-level intelligence will be a quake of unprecedented impact. However, I think nanotechnology, cybernetics, BMI, genetics, the Petabyte Age, the Metaverse, and many more technologies will ALL play into the Singularity, no matter the order in which they arrive. AGI by itself can be the game changer; it will not be by itself.

[PWAIN]

In that lecture Ray gave 2 very interesting comments -

1. "But, let's talk about, first, ten years from now, or eight or nine years from now. First of all, computers will disappear"

2. "By 2009, we'll have full immersion visual and auditory virtual reality"

Computers - not "Desktop Computers" so the whole laptop thing is moot.

When predicting, in a general way like this, it is normal to predict things that will be fairly common in the mainstream population even if it has not taken off completely. Eg. a prediction of Blu-Ray technology would be reasonably accurate because they are freely available and at least a few million people own them.

How many "full immersion visual and auditory virtual reality" sets have you encountered and can you pop into KMart to get one?

K is off and demonstrably off and all the apologists here cannot change those basic facts.

No one wants to answer the actual question ie. if he is wrong about this, how much confidence can we have in his other predictions about the singularity?

My answer would be that we can have moderate confidence about the singularity occuring but low confidence about the time frame suggested.

I wouldn't change any aspect of my life based on this prediction.

[Richard Leis]

K is off and demonstrably off and all the apologists here cannot change those basic facts.

This will not be demonstrably off until the end of 2009. Kurzweil said to CNET News in 2001:

You've said that by 2009, we'll have ubiquitous, full-immersion, shared visual-auditory virtual reality environments. In practical terms, what need be the sequence of events to realize that future? And which industry--or industries--do you think will take the lead?
All these things require certain enabling technologies. For instance, there are a number of vendors today who offer retinal projection glasses. They don't yet have the resolution or look completely normal, but it's not 2009 yet. We already have wearable computing. But we're not yet at the point in Moore's Law where it's become completely invisible. We need to get personal local area networks. And certainly, we will have systems like that so we don't have to carry all those wires. So your personal computer will turn up in your clothing and your display will be in your glasses. By 2009, we will have very high bandwidth, and the electronics for everything will be so small that it will be embedded everywhere.

As noted elsewhere regarding android technology "[i]t is easy to see all the pieces being built, but no one has yet combined them all into" ubiquitous, full-immersion, shared visual-auditory virtual reality environments.

Even if Kurzweil is off by 5, 10, even 20 years for this particular technology, he will be remain well regarded as a technology prognosticator. Also, if his Law of Accelerating Returns holds, you will see more progress toward this particular technology over the next year than the previous year. When December 31, 2009 rolls around, it will be enlightening to revisit this prediction (and this forum topic) and see what has happened over the past 14 months before making the final call.

[Richard Leis]

No one wants to answer the actual question ie. if he is wrong about this, how much confidence can we have in his other predictions about the singularity?

If he is wrong about this, then our confidence can remain (relatively speaking) high because of his track record. If he is wrong about this, but only a few years wrong, then our confidence can remain high because he has some sense of the trends at work, if not the specific dates. If he is wrong about this, and it never happens, then we must understand whether or not the technology was usurped or contained within some other technology before we can reevaluate our confidence level.

We again return to the question, when do you belabor the date? Which is more important: the specific dates these occur, or whether or not they occur at all within a some defined reasonable period of time. I don't know how different the date has to be for me to personally lose confidence in his predictions; my confidence in predictions is never very high to begin with.

I anticipate this reasoned critique: "by 2009" means no later than December 31, 2008. If it didn't happen until December 31, 2009, would that still be considered "by 2009"? I think so, but regardless, my confidence in his predictive abilities would certainly improve. I would go so far as to say that if his prediction is within 5, 10, or even 20 years, my confidence in his predictive abilities would improve.

[Futurist1000]

I think his books are great and full of good ideas, but he does get stuff wrong. A lot of his predictions are impractical. Just because they technically could be done doesn't mean they will. As a futurist, though, you make more money if you tell people about an interesting future. Instead of telling a depressing one where no progress occurs or a more realistic assessment that isn't as interesting.

Ray kurzweil tends to have a utopian view of the future. The utopian view is somewhat uncoupled from reality in many ways.

Edited by hrc579, 13 October 2008 - 01:39 AM.

[Richard Leis]

I think his books are great and full of good ideas, but he does get stuff wrong. A lot of his predictions are impractical. Just because they technically could be done doesn't mean they will. As a futurist, though, you make more money if you tell people about an interesting future. Instead of telling a depressing one where no progress occurs or a more realistic assessment that isn't as interesting.

Ray kurzweil tends to have a utopian view of the future. The utopian view is somewhat uncoupled from reality in many ways.

Kurzweil states in "The Singularity is Near":

"Although [the Singularity period] is neither utopian nor dystopian, this epoch will transform the concepts that we rely on to give meaning to our lives, from our business models to the cycle of human life, including death itself. Understanding the Singularity will alter our perspective on the significance of our past and the ramifications for our future."

He also states:

"[...] and I still cannot say that I am entirely comfortable with all of its [the Singularity's] consequences."

He also devotes sections and chapters to existential risks. He emphasizes the fundamental change that the Singularity brings, regardless of any particular outcome.

However, I agree with you that he has a particular utopian view of the Singularity, one that has been criticized resulting in some moderation in his language in recent years. Publisher’s Weekly called him "technology’s most credibly hyperbolic optimist", after all, though the interesting juxtaposition of "credibly" and "hyperbolic" indicate fondness rather than critique.

I would argue that Kurzweil attempts to stress an "inevitable" view of the future, rather than a utopian one. See above as well as his list of "principles" in chapter one in "The Singularity is Near" section. He makes use of active verbs, "is", "will be" and other definitive verbs to suggest an inevitable Singularity. He presents the patterns and trends he recognizes as inevitable, while trying to play down their utopian or dystopian outcomes.

My only point in this post was to emphasize Kurzweil's particular emphasis on an inevitable Singularity over a utopian Singularity. Is he successful? Is the Singularity actually inevitable? These are separate discussions we could have.

[modelcadet]

Reason for edit: Replaced "believe" with "think" - "Believe" is a bad word

Both words are bad, for rhetorical reasons. Because what you write are your own words, that this is what you think, feel, believe, etc. is a given. To highlight this dampens the rhetorical weight of your words.

[Richard Leis]

Reason for edit: Replaced "believe" with "think" - "Believe" is a bad word

Both words are bad, for rhetorical reasons. Because what you write are your own words, that this is what you think, feel, believe, etc. is a given. To highlight this dampens the rhetorical weight of your words.

Thank you for that. I'm trying to improve my discourse abilities one word at a time. I discovered recently I use "believe" and "belief" too often in my writing when discussing science and technology, based on a paper titled "The Importance of Banning the B-Word from Science." I would much rather state that I think something than I believe something, but your point is well taken.

In retrospect, I would like to purposefully dampen the rhetorical weight of my own words regarding the Singularity for two reasons: (1) I am no expert, and (2) the Singularity (any version) remains a fringe idea with poor scientific backing. Although it is one of my favorite topics, the Singularity is not yet backed by the compelling evidence that makes the theory of evolution, for example, such a powerful model.

[Delorean]

I think these predictions are a little ambiguous. It probably would have been better for Ray to just stick with predicting what we will be capable of doing.

My thinking, is that in 10 or 15 years, we can pretty much know for certain whether Ray is on the right track or not because of the supposed steepness of the acceleration by that point. By 2020, it will be much easier to tell if his charts are useful or not. Until then i think it's pretty much going to be bickering and nitpicking.