53 points surprisetalk 3 hours ago 9 comments

AndrewKemendo 1 hour ago | parent

If you really want your mind blown look at how accurate Ray Kurzweil was from his 1999 book Age of Spiritual Machines

The most striking thing is that almost all of his missed predictions were missed not because the technology was not available, but because society rejected or didn’t adopt that technology

_doctor_love 1 hour ago | parent

> but because society rejected or didn’t adopt that technology

I would argue that society would likely have been glad to adopt, but the profit-seeking motive got in the way (again).

AndrewKemendo 1 hour ago | parent

Actually I think it’s the inverse

I was focused on augmented reality largely in part because it was such a big enabler of all other AI technologies

However people have almost uniformly rejected AR glasses my entire career for social reasons and that is only increasing

To the point where in 2016 I was debating with Jessica Alba and she was firm that they won’t take off cause most people don’t want to wear glasses

NDlurker 34 minutes ago | parent

I don't like wearing glasses. I should wear my glasses more often, but I don't. But that isn't going to stop me from buying the Even Reality G2

socializer 7 minutes ago | parent

> but because society rejected or didn’t adopt that technology

OK, so imagine that in 1980, I predicted that we'll colonize Mars by the year 2020. Today, I'm arguing that I was right in my prediction - in broad strokes, we have the technology! Nothing is stopping us. It's just that politicians have different priorities.

Of course, that's a load of bull. You can't decouple predictions about the future of mankind from what the mankind actually decides.

I looked up the predictions on Wikipedia and I'd say that most of them are general enough that they're hard to disagree with (there will be bioengineering, there will be robots, there will be AI), but the timing or the specifics are off on almost every single one of them.

stephen_cagle 1 hour ago | parent

By my own, completely arbitrary split of this into 16 predictions, I would say that this hits on maybe 8 of 16 if we are being a bit generous. Which is good, but certainly not "Inevitable" (the title of the book).

With that said, maybe he meant inevitable as N approaches infinity... So there's still time!

Aside: I think the biggest interesting prediction he had was that AI would obey a user driven network effect. It seems like a very clean prediction, and yet it has failed to materialize? I wonder if this has more to do with just how scrape-able the whole internet was or with distilation or what? There is certainly an advantage to having good user data, but it seems like it is largely something that can be worked around (by hook or crook)?

cousinbryce 1 hour ago | parent

Google’s main product was and continues to be ads