Past forecasting failures don't prove prediction is impossible

Holden KarnofskyHolden Karnofsky — History's most important centuryat 1:11:00

From the conversation

I'm just really not convinced you couldn't have said that. I'm definitely not convinced no one did say it. I think some people did say it. So I think I'm hesitant to get too defeatist just from the fact that some people were wrong about the future in the past. I think it's hard to know if there was really no way to know or if they just weren't trying very hard. One thing you just said a minute ago was that we are better at making predictions than people in the past were. So that alone should make us more optimistic about what we need to predict in the future. It's just a guess. I mean this is what society is. We have had a lot of progress on all kinds of intellectual fronts. I think there has been a lot of progress on what it looks like to make good, reasonable predictions about the future. I think that's something that's happened. So I think we should be expecting ourselves to do a bit better than people did in the past and future people will probably do better than we do. Right. When I look at a report like Biological Anchors, I often wonder whether Asimov is just shooting the shit about screens and what you're able to do with them.…

Machine-generated transcript. The excerpt can include the interviewer and other voices, and the transcription may contain errors. The rest is in the episode →

Summary

Past failures at forecasting do not automatically mean accurate prediction was impossible — it may simply reflect that people weren't trying hard enough. The fact that forecasting methods have improved over time is itself a reason for optimism about the reliability of future predictions, rather than a basis for defeatism.

Watch the clip on YouTubeStarts at 1:11:00

Concept

Timelines

More from Holden Karnofsky

Related clips