Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Max More's avatar

I was going to do this on my own blog, having recently looked through issues of Extropy. Oh well, now I'll have to write a commentary post.

"Almost everybody underestimated progress brain computer interfaces.' I disagree. We didn't mean simple deep brain stimulation or "non-invasive EEG interfaces". My forecast of 2020-2050 is still in the running.

For "Information storage $0.01 per Megabyte": If 2010 is marked correct, but my 2015 is marked wrong, it seems that unless you get the exact year you're counted as wrong. If, as in most cases, I'd given a range centered on that date, I would have been counted as correct. This suggests something about grading forecasts and suggests to forecasters never to give a point date. The same applies to "Most publications are electronic." It seems that I get graded as wrong but Nick as right although his five-year range starts only one year after mine. Looking at 1999 on the chart you provide, it's looks like 1999 is not wrong because the proposition was NOT "most intellectual publications are ONLY on the web."

What year do you have for "1 million+ people using anonymous electronic cash"? If Benford's 2010 is correct but my 1999-2006 is not, it must be 2007-2010. In that case, I was close and a slightly wider range would have got it.

Why is Ocean Colonization 2010-2050 marked incorrect when there is still 27 years left?

We should have been right on cryonics-related predictions, but non-technical factors have been extremely disappointing.

Not long after these forecasts, I concluded that it's pointless to make date forecasts. You can maybe foresee general trends, but even those are hard -- unless they are VERY general.

Expand full comment
Natasha Vita-More's avatar

There were and still are women there in this extropic network of visionaries.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts