Over Kurzweil, de voorspellingen, de flaters en de omissies

Op mijn weblog heb ik (on-)regelmatig geschreven over de toekomstvoorspellingen van de Amerikaanse schrijver en uitvinder Ray Kurzweil. Over het algemeen stel ik met betrekking tot zijn voorspellingen vast dat de onderliggende trend – exponentiële groei van de technologische vooruitgang – onmiskenbaar klopt.

Dat neemt niet weg dat Kurzweil, hoe accuraat zijn voorspellingen ook vaak blijken te zijn, zich regelmatig genoeg vergist. In Amerika woedt daarover een redelijk fel debat.

Dat neemt overigens niet weg dat Google en Nasa op basis van zijn ideeën de Singularity University hebben opgericht. Maar dat terzijde.

De eerste vergissing die Kurzweil mijns inziens maakt, is te denken dat technologieën die het wasdom hebben bereikt om die reden ook massaal gebruikt zullen worden. Zo voorspelde hij in 1999 dat in het jaar 2009 het gebruik van spraakherkenning massaal zou plaatsvinden.

Niets is minder waar.

Kurzweil en ik hebben daarover gecorrespondeerd. Zijn reactie? ‘Ik zit er maar een paar jaar naast. Dat is toch niet slecht?’

Het tweede grote probleem met zijn voorspellingen zijn de omissies. Net zoals Stanley Kubrick en Arthur C. Clarke voor de film ‘2001: a Space Odyssey’ niet hadden voorzien dat computers niet alleen veel krachtiger, maar ook vele malen kleiner zouden worden, zo heeft Kurzweil niet voorzien dat we massaal gebruik zouden maken van TomTomachtige navigatiesystemen.

Één van de voorspellingen die Kurzweil in 1999 gedaan heeft, in ‘The Age of Spiritual Machines’ is dat ‘warfare’ vrijwel zonder grondtroepen gevoerd kan worden. Dat zou je toch niet helemaal denken als je de oorlogen in Afghanistan en Irak onder de loep legt. Voorspellingen kunnen dus ook faliekant fout zijn.

Toch blijft er heel veel over dat verbazingwekkend accuraat blijkt te zijn. Kurzweil zelf meende in mei van dit jaar een redacteur van Newsweek van repliek te moeten dienen. Ik citeer zijn ingezonden brief, die mij pas vandaag onder ogen kwam, hieronder volledig.

Letters to the EditorLetters@newsweek.com
Newsweek251 W. 57th St.New York, NY 10019

Re: I, Robot, One Man’s Quest to Become a Computer, Newsweek, May 25, 2009

Dear Editor:

I appreciate your bringing my ideas to your readership. However, there are numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations in Daniel Lyons’ story. For example, of the many accurate predictions for the year 2009 that I wrote in my book The Age of Spiritual Machines, written in the late 1990s, only three are listed in the sidebar “Kurzweil’s Crystal Ball” while a larger number are listed as “false.” Of these “false” predictions, a number are in fact true, and others are only a few years away. For example, “Computers will be commonly embedded in clothing and jewelry” is listed as false. When I wrote this prediction, portable computers were large heavy devices carried under your arm. Today they are indeed embedded in shirt pockets, jacket pockets, and hung from belt loops. Colorful iPod nano models are worn on blouses as jewelry pins, health monitors are woven into undergarments, there are now computers in hearing aids, and there are many other examples. “Most portable computers will not have keyboards” is listed as “False.” When I wrote this, every portable computer had an (alphanumeric) keyboard. Today the majority of portable computers such as MP3 players, cameras, phones, game players and many other varieties do not have keyboards. The full quote of my prediction makes it clear that I am referring to computerized devices that “make phone calls, access the web, monitor body functions, provide directions, and provide a variety of other services.”“The deaf will commonly use portable speech-to-text machines to ‘hear’ what others are saying” is not true today, but sophisticated voice-recognition software that works on anyone’s voice is in wide use (using my own technologies) and speech recognition suitable for use by the deaf are technically feasible now and expected on the market in the near future. Lyons cites my prediction that “by 2009 a top supercomputer would be capable of performing 20 petaflops (quadrillion operations per second)” and dismisses my contention that this and a couple of other predictions are “off by a few years” saying they are “not just a little bit wrong, but wildly, laughably wrong.” Yet IBM’s 20 petaflop Sequoia supercomputer is already under construction and IBM has announced that it will begin operation in 2012. Lyons dismisses my accurate prediction (written in the mid to late 1980s) of a world web of computing and communications ubiquitously tying together people with each other and with vast information resources. He writes “But hold on a minute. Who didn’t think the Internet was going to catch on?” The answer is virtually everyone. I wrote this when the entire U.S. defense budget could only tie together a few thousand scientists with the Arpanet. My prediction was considered very radical at the time that I made it just as many of my predictions are regarded today. It is typical that when my predictions become true, people write that they were always obvious. Regarding the dangers of technology, Lyons writes, “But Kurzweil is having none of that – he thinks the ‘man-machine civilization’ is going to be wonderful. He doesn’t argue. He just sits there smiling.” That’s a total misrepresentation. Extensive portions of my recent books and many of my speeches are devoted to what I describe as “the intertwined promise versus peril” of new technology. Bill Joy’s famous cover story in WIRED on the dire dangers of new technologies was based, as he states at the beginning of his article, on my book The Age of Spiritual Machines. I’m not just sitting here smiling, but have worked extensively with the Army and other organizations on developing defenses against abuse of biotechnology and other advanced technologies. Lyons writes “[Ray] has no doubt. None. He is utterly, completely 100 percent sure that he is going to live forever….He is absolutely certain about this. Nothing can talk him out of it.” This is also a complete misquote. He asked me that question and I responded that I felt I had a good chance of living long enough to get to the point where we have technologies that will radically extend human longevity, but that it was by no means certain, that I could get a disease tomorrow for which we have no answer. Lyons and I were together recently for one of the premiere screenings of Transcendent Man, the movie about my life and ideas, at the Tribeca Film Festival. I express this uncertainty very clearly in the concluding part of that movie.As the article makes clear, I welcome critics and constructive debate, but all too often this dialogue is marred by extensive misquotes and misrepresentations of what I have actually said and written.

Sincerely,Ray Kurzweil