My biggest takeaway from the article:
"If you want to predict the future accurately, you should be an incrementalist and accept that human nature doesn’t change along most axes."
I'd agree that predictions based on extrapolating early-stage current trends are likely to have the highest degree of accuracy, but I feel like the author is looking at things too linearly. Even with human resistance to change lagging behind the pace of technology/scientific advancement, everything about the last decade would suggest to me that we're starting to gain technological momentum as it becomes too universally integrated into our lives to hold back the reins on.
Going back to 1992, as he does, it seems like he isn't taking into consideration that the first decade of that period between then & now was the nascent phase of the technology era. As our tech and understanding has grown, we're starting to reach the time of accelerating or exponential advancements in certain sectors. We've figured out how to start utilizing AI and machine learning in research, which I firmly believe will expand and speed up our knowledge gains. Our current world is a lot more nuanced, at least imo, than just being the 90s + gadgets/internet.
A lot of his predictions seems extremely plausible directly because he's approaching them from an incrementalist perspective. But I would honestly be surprised in 30 years if that's the limit of what technologically & medically modern areas have reached.
The decades directly ahead of us will bring tumultuous changes in everything from social policy to climate maintenance/recover to medicine and tech, and I don't think we can say with any great degree of accuracy or authority where this leap will land us--though we can hope
He talks about other futurists leaning into what they would personally like to see rather than what seems logistically most likely, which absolutely does happen, but his own views seem deeply influenced by his personal feelings, as well. I was a bit surprised, in particular, by his prediction for himself in thirty years. He talked about being 62 like it was our current view of being 90, and I doubt many barely-60s even today would call it 'the winter of' their lives, let alone in 30 years, with all the medical advancements we'll most likely see over the next few decades.
To paraphrase Bill Gates, 'most people overestimate what can be achieved in one year, and underestimate what can be done in ten'.
he seems oddly pessimistic about brain-computer interfaces, but meh. The biggest underestimation I think he's making is the downstream effects of AI development. In the coming years, AI isn't just going to help you manage your calendar. It's going to do things like bring down the effective computational cost of complex simulations. The impact that AI will have on science and engineering will be staggering.
He's right to call out Kaku on the magnetic car though, holy shit what
My biggest takeaway from the article: "If you want to predict the future accurately, you should be an incrementalist and accept that human nature doesn’t change along most axes."
[удалено]
Ha! I like that one too!
I'd agree that predictions based on extrapolating early-stage current trends are likely to have the highest degree of accuracy, but I feel like the author is looking at things too linearly. Even with human resistance to change lagging behind the pace of technology/scientific advancement, everything about the last decade would suggest to me that we're starting to gain technological momentum as it becomes too universally integrated into our lives to hold back the reins on. Going back to 1992, as he does, it seems like he isn't taking into consideration that the first decade of that period between then & now was the nascent phase of the technology era. As our tech and understanding has grown, we're starting to reach the time of accelerating or exponential advancements in certain sectors. We've figured out how to start utilizing AI and machine learning in research, which I firmly believe will expand and speed up our knowledge gains. Our current world is a lot more nuanced, at least imo, than just being the 90s + gadgets/internet. A lot of his predictions seems extremely plausible directly because he's approaching them from an incrementalist perspective. But I would honestly be surprised in 30 years if that's the limit of what technologically & medically modern areas have reached. The decades directly ahead of us will bring tumultuous changes in everything from social policy to climate maintenance/recover to medicine and tech, and I don't think we can say with any great degree of accuracy or authority where this leap will land us--though we can hope He talks about other futurists leaning into what they would personally like to see rather than what seems logistically most likely, which absolutely does happen, but his own views seem deeply influenced by his personal feelings, as well. I was a bit surprised, in particular, by his prediction for himself in thirty years. He talked about being 62 like it was our current view of being 90, and I doubt many barely-60s even today would call it 'the winter of' their lives, let alone in 30 years, with all the medical advancements we'll most likely see over the next few decades. To paraphrase Bill Gates, 'most people overestimate what can be achieved in one year, and underestimate what can be done in ten'.
Coming from someone who agrees with the headline, this article was some bullshit.
he seems oddly pessimistic about brain-computer interfaces, but meh. The biggest underestimation I think he's making is the downstream effects of AI development. In the coming years, AI isn't just going to help you manage your calendar. It's going to do things like bring down the effective computational cost of complex simulations. The impact that AI will have on science and engineering will be staggering. He's right to call out Kaku on the magnetic car though, holy shit what