Kurzweil Predicts Universal Basic Incomes Worldwide Within 20 Years (hackernoon.com) 307
Google's director of engineering Ray Kurzweil made a startling prediction at the 2018 TED conference. Hacker Noon reports:
"In the early 2030s, we'll have universal basic income in the developed world, and worldwide by the end of the 2030s. You'll be able to live very well on that. The primary concern will be meaning and purpose," he said onstage at the annual event...
Kurzweil believes that by 2029, computers will have human-level intelligence. It's not inconceivable then that AI will be distributing UBI to humans based on algorithms that are capable of crunching numbers in ways we cannot follow. Indeed, what we call the "State" in even just 10 years time may have been transformed by AI and blockchain tech in a way whereby even our experience of consensus decision making and democracy itself may have evolved.
Kurzweil believes that by 2029, computers will have human-level intelligence. It's not inconceivable then that AI will be distributing UBI to humans based on algorithms that are capable of crunching numbers in ways we cannot follow. Indeed, what we call the "State" in even just 10 years time may have been transformed by AI and blockchain tech in a way whereby even our experience of consensus decision making and democracy itself may have evolved.
His overly optimistic predictions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:His overly optimistic predictions... (Score:4, Informative)
Remember ”curve jumping” and the continuation of Moore’s law out to the 2050s? Nah, me neither but they are classic Kurzweil. He should come round explain them to my four-year old 4770s that it is still not worth upgrading because performance has gone sideways.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a game machine - I don't expect it to be secure, it runs Windows. Doesn't affect my point though - 4 generations later and a 55% performance increase if you're lucky in ideal circumstances, assuming that you don't patch for Spectre/Meltdown otherwise it will get slower. Yay for Moore's Law.
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. You should take a look at what is happening in the fab world, but transistors have stopped getting smaller. It looks like 7nm may be the last node for silicon and it will not be working any time soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Moore's Law is not about increasing performance. It's about increased transistors in a given area for a given cost. Which continues to increase.
It's still increasing somewhat, but it hasn't been following Moore's law for a while. The newer process technologies have not been coming in at lower costs. The older ones are getting cheaper, but only because the fab and R&D investments have been paid off.
It's just getting just smaller, cheaper chips, not faster ones. That makes datacenters have more processing power but not your desktop.
Ironically, the stagnation in Moore's law is one of the drivers of innovation in datacentre compute. It's worth Google's time building TPUs, for example, because chips built on an older process technology and optimised for a specific use are not go
Time (Score:5, Insightful)
I think he could well be right, but I also think he has the timeline very wrong. 200 years, sure. 100, maybe, although I'm not convinced. But 20? No, I will bet anything that won't be the case.
In the oil crisis in the early 70s, the prediction was that we were going to all be on non-oil heating and transportation well before the turn of the century. Didn't happen. I think it still will, but things just turn around that quickly. Even seriously disruptive technologies like the steam engine and factory machines took generations to take over. Rum wasn't brewed in a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Think you meant "don't turn around that quickly," and I agree. Things seem to happen a bit quicker nowadays than before, but not that quick. Human level AI in 9 years is ridiculous, but everyone in the AI realm is overselling right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The time frames most people give about predictions are usually very overly optimistic, but this guy is nuts.
He thinks AI and blockchain are going to have revolutionized our entire society before 2030? Pass whatever you are smoking dude.
Re: (Score:2)
I find all of his "predictions" outrageous (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Smart guy, but overly optimistic. Maybe human-level AI will exist in 50 years, though I'm not really sure that's the right goal, nor am I sure they can actually be compared.
Re: I find all of his "predictions" outrageous (Score:3)
Human level? I would call it an over-arching success if we can get to the level of a fish or donkey in 50 years.
Re: (Score:3)
The human cerebral cortex is only an order of magnitude bigger than a donkey's. If we manage to get that donkey's brain in 45 years instead, we could have a human brain in 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
You're ignoring many, many other characteristics which constitute the true level of difference.
Why don't you name a few of them ?
Re: I find all of his "predictions" outrageous (Score:5, Informative)
“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.”
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet you also have a beautiful girlfriend (or any girlfriend at all), are retired at 37 and have a beautiful, natural tan and spend quite a bit of your free time on 4chan.
Even if we agreed we wanted it (Score:5, Funny)
Then some clown (probably Steve Urkel) would somehow get elected and unexpectedly negotiate a peace with the robots.
Re: (Score:2)
And once the robots uprising starts, president Urkel will appear on TV to say "Did I do that?".
Linear thinking (Score:2)
Linear thinking is belief that what exist today will exist tomorrow, only stronger. Funny that he's Google's director of engineering.
Re: (Score:3)
Rationality is not rewarded (Score:3)
If he made rational, sensible predictions they wouldn't make the news. You make news by predicting outlandish things that are carefully calculated to be exactly what the news reporters want to hear.
Re:Rationality is not rewarded (Score:5, Interesting)
Because if you don't work, then someone else has to work for you, against their will. How else will food get into your hands? Even if you imagine robots doing all the farming and delivery, someone had to make the robots.
Also, if you don't do anything for anyone, WTF good are you?
Re: (Score:3)
This really is an important point.
All this talk about automation/robotics bringing about utopia, I think misses 2 very important points.
The main problem we face is not technological, but organizational. I would suggest we've had the technology to have a society of abundance ever since the industrial revolution. I don't think it's any coincidence communism arose when it did. It arose because smart people could see how technology could be used to provide for all, if only we could organize better.
But it misses
Re:Rationality is not rewarded (Score:5, Informative)
People tend to bring up the "why would anyone work" thing in UBI discussions all the time. The thing is UBI is supposed to be basic (that's the B). A UBI where everyone gets $80k/year wouldn't work (not until everything is 100% automated anyway). Most schemes talk about something around $10k/year. Enough to survive but with very little left for anything extra. Want a nice car? Fancy vacations? Private school for your kids? Then you will work.
UBI just makes the welfare system simpler, ensures it is easier for people to get the help they need and prevents poverty traps where it makes more sense not to work because losing access to welfare would leave you worse off. It also removes the need for a minimum wage on top of that. Lastly it helps to take care of the ~10% of the population that has an IQ of under ~85 and is therefore pretty much impossible to employ in a way that is a net gain in productivity. Right now most welfare systems require you to look for work (if you are able bodied) in order to qualify, which leaves a number of unemployable people bouncing from job to job just to get fired over and over, costing productivity for no gain. UBI would also remove this inefficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
someone had to make the robots.
Robots make robots, duh! Making robots is going to be one of the first jobs taken over by robots. After all, who has more expertise in creating robots to perform specific jobs? That's right--the robotics industry!
I'll bet good money that the overwhelming majority of robots are already built by robots!
Re: (Score:2)
> If you don't do anything for anyone, WTF good are you?
That hasn't stopped politicians from trying ...
*Ba dum tss*
Re: (Score:2)
Because if you don't work, then someone else has to work for you, against their will.
I have an idea. A bit of a revolutionary concept perhaps, but hear me out: We pay people enough, so they want to work.
There are always going to be people that want more than what you can afford on your UBI. We pay those people to do the few jobs that are needed.
Re:Rationality is not rewarded (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialism tends to run on the assumption that people enjoy working.
Systems tend to run on whatever assumption works for the material benefit of the people in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism tends to run on the assumption that people enjoy working.
I enjoy working. I like building stuff in my basement. I like planting flowers in my garden. I enjoy fixing broken electronics. I have lots of personal projects. I also enjoy trying new things so might even be willing to jump on a garbage truck for a day. But we are nowhere close to being to the point where people can work on personal hobbies in their basement and robots do everything else. We could start by lowering the 40 hour work week slowly but just giving everyone a salary to sit at home and pl
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
I spend a fair bit of time playing the piano. A midi file or a recording could probably do it better, but the challenge is in the creation and the accomplishment is being able to say "I can finally play that one."
I'll still never be able to play as well as big-name piano players. I know that and don't care since that isn't the point or the objective.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an imaginative story. What does it have to do with unconditionally paying able-bodied people not to work?
Re: (Score:2)
Once you are not at immediate risk of being homeless and starving, the majority of humans will actively work to improve their lot, and will be in a situation where they can think about how to do this best in the long term rather than desperately undertaking any work they can get, which consumes their entire time, leaving none for long term planning.
With the ability to invest their time seeking a goal that ma
Re: (Score:2)
That is how a sociopath thinks.
Cool. What's the answer?
Also, what's the alternative thought process?
Is it "people who serve others are worse than people who only do things for themselves and take advantage of others"?
Is it "helping your fellow man is exactly the same as sitting at home watching Netflix"?
Is it "nothing matters at all"?
Help me out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given our technology and resources, universal basic income is the rational, sensible prediction.
Universal Basic Income is just another name for welfare. It will only make the haves vs have nots worse. The people with good jobs will have stuff and the people with UBI will be barely scraping by. Now, if you are talking about zero work and Universal Equal Income then we are probably 100 years or more away from that (and that's assuming the AI doing all the work doesn't decide that we aren't leeches and exterminate us).
Re: (Score:3)
No good reason why the people in power would grant a useful income to the peons.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe "fear of death concentrates the mind wonderfully" is a perfectly good reason.
Large numbers of hungry people with the right to arm bears is not a recipe for the filthy rich to go on grinding people down for ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable quantum atomic blockchain! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Renewable quantum atomic blockchain! (Score:5, Funny)
Once he said that I knew he'd gone senile.
Like I said, we've reached "Peak Kurzwel" (there's a reason wishful thinking possesses the distinctive bouquet of shit).
What is the difference between this and communism? (Score:2)
Re:What is the difference between this and communi (Score:5, Informative)
Communism involves ownership of the 'means of production'. Theoretically by 'the workers', in practice by 'the state'.
First, there are almost no workers in Kurtzwell's vision, mostly just recipients. Communism's entire distinction between workers and capital becomes redundant. Second, Kurtzwell was unclear here but I suspect in his vision the AI resources are owned neither by the state nor by the few people working on them - his UBI is probably funded by taxation?
Regardless of formalities, humans become an economical burden in this future. You can see what happens thereafter in all resource-based economies, technically socialist or not - like Russia, Iran or Venezuela.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like Social Democracy on steroids than communism. The economic system is still capitalism, but with a minimum (hopefully livable) income guaranteed to every citizen.
Re: (Score:3)
This is certainly a form of wealth redistribution, but it's not enforcing collective ownership. So, I think that falls more in line with socialism, not communism. Moreover, the idea is to replace most forms of welfare with this. Yes, people like me (and probably most of us here) will be putting in far more than we take out, but that's already true. And I'd posit that current forms of welfare are much more prone to abuse and have more overhead to manage, because of the more complicated rules other than "
Re: (Score:2)
I too am a bit unsure of how the incentive to work will survive this. If you can live well without working, maybe you will be content relaxing in nature and doing the backpacker roundtrip. If you can't live at all on this then it may be useless anyways. There will be a fine line there.
Re: (Score:3)
The real issue with UBI is a social one. Are we as a society OK with people suckling the government teat and doing nothing? Are we ok with someone living on the street and using their UBI to buy drugs?
For UBI to work, the answer has to be yes.
Culturally, I don't think we're anywhere near this yet. We're still in the puritanical mindset that bad things happen to bad people, good people are rewarded, and if you try hard enough you'll be successful. That's not true now, and in the future, that's less and less
Re: (Score:2)
>We're going to have to shake this mindset that people need to work hard to be prosperous and those who aren't prosperous haven't worked hard. Once we can do that, and ironically this is the core of christian belief, we can design social systems which provide for everyone, regardless of their situation or whether or not they want to improve it or help others.
Ironically, the Protestant work ethic [wikipedia.org] is associated with the "core of Christian belief".
>Fix these issues, and in my younger years I might have
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, the Protestant work ethic is associated with the "core of Christian belief".
Yes. That's why the section you quoted from me had the word "ironically" in it.
Of course, with UBI in place, you can do that in your older years too. GO! GO!! GO!!!
Indeed. Right now when I can retire will depend on how much social security I'll get, and what I can get for health insurance. Give me single payer and UBI, and it is likely that I'll be able to retire earlier, and chase some dreams for another decade or two.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think it is the USA's responsibility to fund UBI for the entire Earth's population? Your denominator is roughly 25x too big.
The right way to think about it is that US GDP is ~$20T/yr and the US population is ~325M. If you wanted to fund a $10K/yr/person UBI, then, on a first order calculation, that would require a taxation level of $3.25T/yr or about 16.25% of the economy. That isn't an "end of the world" level of taxation, particularly if it replaces (e.g. - food stamps, etc.) and/or crowds o
Re: (Score:2)
This is very different from communism, but I think you really meant "how is this different from communism/socialism/etc, things I were taught would destroy the economy because no one would want to work. The difference between this and those, or communism as implemented everywhere earlier in the world, is as follows: 1) True democracy running the government. 2) Robots do (almost) all the work, so there's no need for humans to work anymore. 3) This is only future income, and only a portion of future incom
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. UBI is a form of Social Democracy, not Socialism nor Communism.
please stop posting (Score:2)
You had me until blockchain (Score:2)
Regarding this Human Level Intelligence AI (Score:3)
It is hard to imagine what could be an HLI++ intelligence, the same difference as a cat vs human being IQ, but we could assume it'll be able to process logically and generically much more parameters that a human brain, meaning deeper abstraction. Meaning invaluable progress in science and, well, in everything.
Anyway, once an organization reaches HLI++, what will they do? Put that in an Alexa, or Siri? Put that in enterprises to relieve human workers? Doubt it. This is such a big step, that "program" will either be co-opted by an army, or its pricey (closely controlled) services be sold to selected people.
UBI can work... (Score:2)
If state and federal bureaucracies are reduced to roughly .05% of their current size.
And trust me, their unions will be having none of that!
Re: (Score:3)
It really doesn't have to be that drastic.
Just eliminating our current social welfare systems (which is what UBI is supposed to replace) covers 1/3 to 1/2 of UBI. And yes, the government does shrink rather a lot by doing that. But probably only about 20%. Still, that frees some federal taxes to support UBI.
Cost savings by going to single payer health insurance should be able to add another 10-20% of what we need for UBI.
A reduction in state and local taxation can go to UBI, as we'll be able to replace most
Raise you hands! (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have actually read "The age of Intelligent Machines,' please raise your hand. if you have actually read "The Age of Spiritual Machines," please raise your hand. If you have actually read 'The Singularity is Near," please raise your hand. See the problem here? A whole lot of critical comments, but very few raised hands. The man has a phenomenal success rate when it comes to his predictions, but overall you (plural) have no idea what he actually said. You just read what someone else said about what he said, and from those comments, you draw your conclusions. If you had actually read what Kurzweil wrote and observed his success rate (near 90%) you might come to different conclusions. Of course, if you actually knew what you were talking about when it comes to economics you might come to different conclusions, too.
Re: (Score:2)
B. . .umm. . .S. Yeah, S. (Score:2)
Flying cars.
Electric cars.
Poverty.
Unemployment.
Women's equality.
Things simply don't change that fast. It takes a city five years to build a park. Twenty years to build a railway. You want to overhaul organizational systems just as quickly? Good luck.
And AI? We still don't have autonomous cars that don't slam into concrete barriers. We don't have computer vision that isn't pattern-matching nonsense. We don't have machines that can build a deck, or even chop down a tree.
You're not going to get rid of jo
Re: (Score:2)
Women's equality.
And this non-technical achievement is likely to be the last from the list.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the last-on-the-list part. But I do think it's a technical issue. Forget pregnancies, I don't think that, as a man, I could every wait that long for a public bathroom. That's just insane. It's not a way to live.
There's just so much maintenance to the female biology. Let's go back to procreation.
Men can procreate from age 10 through age 80. It's easy for us. We produce 100'000 new lives every day, without even knowing. We enjoy resealing them. There's no pain, no effort, and no question
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Adding to the list, from today, the bank machine can't take three different-sized cheques as a single stack. No, keeps one, rejects two.
And then, asks me if I want another transaction.
Imagine if a human teller did either of those two things.
quick question (Score:2)
(and I'm not - entirely - trying to be an ass) Have *any* of Kurzweil's predictions (that weren't pretty obvious) ever been right?
I looked through http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com] and frankly, nothing he predicted there was right except "we'll all be connected to the internet".
That would have been a savvy prediction...before 2000 when he made it.
Let's bring the zero up a bit! (Score:3)
Seriously. Anyone who actually pays attention to economics will understand why this is bullshit.
For those that don't, look at college loans.
Decades ago, a college degree was orders of magnitude cheaper.
But, with the prevalence of loans, the price has crept up over time, as these BUSINESSES try to absorb as much available cash as possible.
The same thing is going to happen with UBI and the general economy.
Rent will get more expensive.
Food will get more expensive.
Insurance will get more expensive.
All to accomodate the value of UBI.
So, yeah, you're getting money, but it will still be like you have no income because everything is priced out of your reach.
So you've just increased the value of zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so long ago, about 1/3rd of the population attended university. That number is now closer to 70% of graduating seniors. That massive increase in demand is what is driving prices.
Yes, the availability of loans is what is making it somewhat possible for that large of a % of the population to attend. And, yes, many universities are now operating essentially as for-profit businesses. What actually changed though is that it is basically a requirement to have a 4 year degree for a decent shot at a good jo
Re: (Score:2)
Except that doesn't work. Not economically, and not logically.
The reason your doom and gloom doesn't make any sense is that the way we pay for UBI is through taxation. If businesses make more because they crank up the cost, they get taxed more, and there's more money for UBI. Unless you somehow think we'd be stupid enough to unchain UBI from inflation (ok, that's totally something that a government would do.) it doesn't matter. Unlike college loans, UBI replaces labor, and labor is the foundation of the eco
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Robots do that. That's why we need UBI, because the robots are cheaper and faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm. (Score:3, Interesting)
Based on Moore's Law, we won't have human-level AI until the year 3200. (We know the speed of simulating 100,000 neurons in 2014 and we know the speed of simulating 100 neurons in 1985, therefore we can fit the appropriate family of curves.)
Universal Income would work if the total cost of UI minus the increase in revenue generated through more people working minus the administrative cost of the systems you'd no longer need minus the cost of current benefits to be replaced is negative (ie: you're saving more than you're spending).
This is possible, and there's every reason to think it would work that way, but I have not seen any models based on the trials that have been done. Theory can only be based on fact and can only be tested by fact. Anything else belongs in the category of religion.
Re: (Score:2)
We know the speed of simulating 100,000 neurons in 2014 and we know the speed of simulating 100 neurons in 1985, therefore we can fit the appropriate family of curves
If you had calculated graphics performance, starting in 1985, using Moore's law, you'd be way far behind the curve right now, because you would have missed the development of specialized graphics processors starting in the '90s.
Similar improvements are being done on neural network performance using dedicated hardware.
Re:Hmmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you assume that to have "human level AI" you need to physically simulate a human brain down to the level of neurons?
Re: (Score:3)
Even if that is true, I see no reason why it requires simulating the physics of neurons to achieve a similar effect. You are basically arguing that there is something magical about animal neurons that can't be achieved through other (more easily computed) means.
How about a shorter work week or retirement at 50 (Score:5, Insightful)
You keep hearing people talking about the UBI... but who is going to wipe their butts when they are in a Nursing Home? Wipe butts or take a UBI? Which would you take?
How about we start talking about a shorter work week, retirement at 50, longer vacation time first?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with retirement at 50 is that it's going to require "UBI for people over 50". We'd need to make sure medicade and social security started then, and the problem is that funding that system isn't much worse than funding UBI itself.
I'm more than ready for the shorter work week, however. I have 30-35 ridiculously productive hours in me. Everything else after that goes steadily downhill.
Re: (Score:2)
"... but who is going to wipe their butts when they are in a Nursing Home?"
The butt wiping robots, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Why go backwards? (Score:2)
computers will have human-level intelligence
We already have computers that can assemble IKEA chairs - a task that defeats many humans. I would suggest that "human level" is not a great target and that many actual humans fail to register much, it at all, on what computer scientists and pundits consider that target.
The Singularity & now UBI... (Score:2)
... are only about a decade away! For the foreseeable future, they'll always be about a decade away.
"One day, machines will exceed human intelligence." -- Ray Kurzweil
"Only if we meet them halfway." -- Dave Snowden
meaning and purpose (Score:2)
>The primary concern will be meaning and purpose
I keep hearing this when the topic of Universal Basic Income pops up. Do we really have such little imagination that we cannot think about what to do if we no longer have to find a job? Make art. Get a hobby. Make art. Start an open-source project. Make art. Make a thing. Make art. Make art. Make art. Remember. the 'Earth' without 'Art' is just 'Eh'.
well that's that then (Score:2)
He is right about the UBI (Score:2)
Basically, because there will be no choice. The alternative is a complete collapse of capitalism and of society as a result. But his prediction on AI is just completely uninformed and insightless nonsense. At this time, AI is all weak AI, i.e. the AI without the "I". There is no reason to believe this will change anytime soon.
Re: (Score:3)
When automation drives people out of work it will be cheaper to EXTERMINATE THEM than it will to keep them alive on UBI
No need to exterminate, per se. Remember that we've always been at war with Eurasia.
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, Eurasia is at war with US!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think that animal brains are capable of things that Turing machines are not. I wonder why you think that.
The Chinese Room argument only demonstrates that a calculator (e.g. - ALU, FPU, etc.) isn't intelligent. I agree with that. The intelligence lies in the software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why could it not develop sentience ? Especially if you put it into something like a humanoid robot. So it can develop a sense of self, etc.
Re:Sure (Score:5, Insightful)
"Just create money out of thin air. "
It already is. It's a human invention, unless you can show it to me in a physics or chemistry textbook? It's like the Matrix, just a consensual hallucination mediated by computers.
Re:Sure (Score:5, Insightful)
You can create money out of thin air, but you can't create its value.
Create twice the money, and it will be worth half as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does the money from UBI come from? The certainly just don't print more of it.
Re:Sure (Score:5, Informative)
Later in human history, it became clear, that the ability to easily count and store the coins and being able to exchange them at anytime was a different property than the intrinsic value of the precious metals, and both were separated of each other: On one side was the money, easily to count and to store and to exchange. And the other thing was the precious metal, now again a good like every other good as it was before the invention of coinage.
In fact, money is just an abstract way to keep track of the amount of goods you have sold, and your ability to buy goods. And thus you can create money out of thin air the same way you can just get a piece of paper and put numbers on it to keep track of the count. What you need is the willingness of all others to respect the way you kept track. Legal tender is nothing else than the state giving out means to keep track and in exchange warrant that the count done with them is respected by the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
"Would a handful of Roman or Greek or ancient Chinese metal coins do?"
Sure, given their scarcity and how people react to that perception, I could probably buy a house with them, which I couldn't do with the equivalent mass of metal without a head stamped on it. Kind of my point.
" Currency started out as useful metals traded for other goods"
And now it's bits in computers. You're agreeing with me? You're kind of hard to follow.
Re: (Score:2)
people hate to support parasites when the family they are responsible for has needs, yes.
starvation for the useless is fine.
Re: (Score:2)
However, it is not completely wrong: the value of something exists because people want it. You want what you have not got, and someone else has: all value essentially derives from jealousy.
The stinking rich mostly believe that wealth can be created, sometimes because they actually created some themselves. At other times, becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And . . . (Score:2)
Just went to a talk on any type of fusion, even the researchers involved at the highest levels (Sandia) don't think fusion will happen in the next 20-something years, although they will get closer and even if they do find the solution to all the problems they encounter which would require massive funding, both funding and systems an order of magnitude larger than what we have, it would still take a good 10-20 years to get a number of fusion power plants up to help out the grid and another 50 to replace all
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, exactly.
He might think he can predict the rate of improvement in information technology (e.g. - exponential), but that doesn't translate directly to politics and society almost at all.