(I forgot to mention an important part of my argument, oops—You wouldn’t have said “at least 100 years off” you would have said “at least 5000 years off.” Because you are anchoring to recent-past rates of progress rather than looking at how rates of progress increase over time and extrapolating. (This is just an analogy / data point, not the key part of my argument, but look at GWP growth rates as a proxy for tech progress rates: According to this GWP doubling time was something like 600 years back then, whereas it’s more like 20 years now. So 1.5 OOMs faster.) Saying “at least a hundred years off” in 1600 would be like saying “at least 3 years off” today. Which I think is quite reasonable.)
That argument does make more sense, although it still doesn’t apply to me, as I would never confidently state a 5000 year forecast due to the inherent uncertainty of long term predictions. (My estimates for nanotech are also high uncertainty, for the record).
Thanks for discussing with me!
(I forgot to mention an important part of my argument, oops—You wouldn’t have said “at least 100 years off” you would have said “at least 5000 years off.” Because you are anchoring to recent-past rates of progress rather than looking at how rates of progress increase over time and extrapolating. (This is just an analogy / data point, not the key part of my argument, but look at GWP growth rates as a proxy for tech progress rates: According to this GWP doubling time was something like 600 years back then, whereas it’s more like 20 years now. So 1.5 OOMs faster.) Saying “at least a hundred years off” in 1600 would be like saying “at least 3 years off” today. Which I think is quite reasonable.)
That argument does make more sense, although it still doesn’t apply to me, as I would never confidently state a 5000 year forecast due to the inherent uncertainty of long term predictions. (My estimates for nanotech are also high uncertainty, for the record).
no worries, I enjoyed the debate!