Ray Kurzweil vs. Tyler Cowen. The inventor vs. the economist. Which one is right about the speed of technological change and progress? It would be interesting to see these two on stage together ala Keynes vs. Hayek.
Upon closer inspection of the specifics of their respective arguments, the initially perceived differences may prove somewhat of a false dichotomy. But in terms of which narrative, or meta idea, is better supported, at this point I'd say Kurzweil's case is more compelling.
Upon closer inspection of the specifics of their respective arguments, the initially perceived differences may prove somewhat of a false dichotomy. But in terms of which narrative, or meta idea, is better supported, at this point I'd say Kurzweil's case is more compelling.
Or maybe ask Kurzweil and Cowen to comment on the others book: "The Singularity is Near" and "The Great Stagnation". I haven't read The Great Stagnation but I see it has some log graphs. The many log graphs in The Singularity is Near is what convinced me that Kurzweil is right. Dueling log graphs?
ReplyDeleteSo far as I know, Cowen and Kurzweil have never faced off directly in a debate. I'm also not sure that their respective hypotheses are incompatible in the long-long-run? I do know, however, that Cowen was at least previously a Kurzweil/Singularity skeptic:
ReplyDeletehttp://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/09/the_singularity.html
Earlier this year Cowen presented his 'Great Stagnation' thesis at the Singularity Conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ed6gNSZRawY
I think that Cowen is underestimating the element of speed that has penetrated vehemently in all branches of science and society. Further one should realize the astonishing progress (amongst others by the fuelling influence of computer science) of molecular genetics (our knowledge of DNA was in 1955 neglactable - if any - compared with the accress in knowledge during the latter half century), robotics and nanotechnology. My father in the fifties would not believe the access possibilities to knowledge that everybody has nowadays. Therefore I think that the difference between 1952 and 2012 is enormous and not just gradual
ReplyDelete