The World in 2025: 8 Predictions for the Next 10 Years

703,503 104 Loading

In 2025, in accordance with Moore's Law, we'll see an acceleration in the rate of change as we move closer to a world of true abundance. Here are eight areas where we'll see extraordinary transformation in the next decade:

1. A $1,000 Human Brain

In 2025, $1,000 should buy you a computer able to calculate at 10^16 cycles per second (10,000 trillion cycles per second), the equivalent processing speed of the human brain.

2. A Trillion-Sensor Economy

The Internet of Everything describes the networked connections between devices, people, processes and data. By 2025, the IoE will exceed 100 billion connected devices, each with a dozen or more sensors collecting data. This will lead to a trillion-sensor economy driving a data revolution beyond our imagination. Cisco's recent report estimates the IoE will generate $19 trillion of newly created value.

3. Perfect Knowledge

We're heading towards a world of perfect knowledge. With a trillion sensors gathering data everywhere (autonomous cars, satellite systems, drones, wearables, cameras), you'll be able to know anything you want, anytime, anywhere, and query that data for answers and insights.

4. 8 Billion Hyper-Connected People

Facebook (Internet.org), SpaceX, Google (Project Loon), Qualcomm and Virgin (OneWeb) are planning to provide global connectivity to every human on Earth at speeds exceeding one megabit per second.

We will grow from three to eight billion connected humans, adding five billion new consumers into the global economy. They represent tens of trillions of new dollars flowing into the global economy. And they are not coming online like we did 20 years ago with a 9600 modem on AOL. They're coming online with a 1 Mbps connection and access to the world's information on Google, cloud 3D printing, Amazon Web Services, artificial intelligence with Watson, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, and more.

5. Disruption of Healthcare

Existing healthcare institutions will be crushed as new business models with better and more efficient care emerge. Thousands of startups, as well as today's data giants (Google, Apple, Microsoft, SAP, IBM, etc.) will all enter this lucrative $3.8 trillion healthcare industry with new business models that dematerialize, demonetize and democratize today's bureaucratic and inefficient system.

Biometric sensing (wearables) and AI will make each of us the CEOs of our own health. Large-scale genomic sequencing and machine learning will allow us to understand the root cause of cancer, heart disease and neurodegenerative disease and what to do about it. Robotic surgeons can carry out an autonomous surgical procedure perfectly (every time) for pennies on the dollar. Each of us will be able to regrow a heart, liver, lung or kidney when we need it, instead of waiting for the donor to die.

6. Augmented and Virtual Reality

Billions of dollars invested by Facebook (Oculus), Google (Magic Leap), Microsoft (Hololens), Sony, Qualcomm, HTC and others will lead to a new generation of displays and user interfaces.

The screen as we know it — on your phone, your computer and your TV — will disappear and be replaced by eyewear. Not the geeky Google Glass, but stylish equivalents to what the well-dressed fashionistas are wearing today. The result will be a massive disruption in a number of industries ranging from consumer retail, to real estate, education, travel, entertainment, and the fundamental ways we operate as humans.

7. Early Days of JARVIS

Artificial intelligence research will make strides in the next decade. If you think Siri is useful now, the next decade's generation of Siri will be much more like JARVIS from Iron Man, with expanded capabilities to understand and answer. Companies like IBM Watson, DeepMind and Vicarious continue to hunker down and develop next-generation AI systems. In a decade, it will be normal for you to give your AI access to listen to all of your conversations, read your emails and scan your biometric data because the upside and convenience will be so immense.

8. Blockchain

If you haven't heard of the blockchain, I highly recommend you read up on it. You might have heard of bitcoin, which is the decentralized (global), democratized, highly secure cryptocurrency based on the blockchain. But the real innovation is the blockchain itself, a protocol that allows for secure, direct (without a middleman), digital transfers of value and assets (think money, contracts, stocks, IP). Investors like Marc Andreesen have poured tens of millions into the development and believe this is as important of an opportunity as the creation of the Internet itself.

Bottom Line: We Live in the Most Exciting Time Ever

We are living toward incredible times where the only constant is change, and the rate of change is increasing.

Image Credit: Shutterstock.com

Peter Diamandis

Dr. Peter Diamandis was recently named by Fortune Magazine as one of the World’s 50 Greatest Leaders.

He is the founder and executive chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation which leads the world in designing and operating large-scale incentive competitions.

He is also the co-founder and executive chairman of Singularity University, a graduate-level Silicon Valley institution that counsels the world’s leaders on exponentially growing technologies.

Diamandis is also the co-founder and vice-chairman of Human Longevity Inc. (HLI), a genomics and cell therapy-based company focused on extending the healthy human lifespan.

In the field of commercial space, Diamandis is co-founder and co-chairman of Planetary Resources, a company designing spacecraft to enable the detection and prospecting of asteroids for fuels and precious materials.He is the also co-founder of Space Adventures and Zero Gravity Corporation.

Diamandis is a New York Times bestselling author of two books: Abundance – The Future Is Better Than You Think and BOLD – How to Go Big, Create Wealth and Impact the World.

He earned degrees in Molecular Genetics and Aerospace Engineering from MIT, and holds an M.D. from Harvard Medical School.

His motto is, “The best way to predict the future is to create it yourself.”

Discussion — 104 Responses

  • madhurbehl May 11, 2015 on 2:02 pm

    I would definitely put space research and space privatization in this list too.

    • Kano180 madhurbehl May 12, 2015 on 4:16 am

      Yeah i second that. If SpaceX can master re-usable rockets, our access to space will reduce in cost by 100x (something like that). Unfortunately the recent fatal Virgin Galactic crash will set its private sub-orbital ambitions back a few years.

      • Kano180 Kano180 May 12, 2015 on 5:05 am

        *sorry – reduce cost by 10x

    • Jack Saturday madhurbehl September 5, 2015 on 10:42 am

      How about feeding the kids?

      • commandersprocket Jack Saturday January 11, 2016 on 1:49 pm

        I suspect that clean water is the larger issue still, and the technology, in the form of Dean Kamen’s Slingshot is now ready (and overcoming the logistics issues with Coka Cola), combined with low cost solar panels I believe we’re likely to end most of the water borne diseases in the next 10 years. 10 years could radically change costs and yield in cultured(in vitro) food products (high protein foods). Muufri is a cultured dairy company, http://www.fastcoexist.com/3044572/the-325000-lab-grown-hamburger-now-costs-less-than-12 Maastricht University has made enormous strides in lowering the cost of in vitro meat.

  • Rustbucket May 11, 2015 on 3:39 pm

    “Perfect Knowledge” also equates to perfect surveillance, a condition we’re getting close to now.

    I read of a case in Germany where an academic was falsely arrested for terrorist leanings because, in part, he sometimes left his home without his mobile phone. So in a supposed western democracy you can be considered a suspect if you don’t voluntarily carry a RF tracking device with you at all times.

    • Regina Schulze-Ouska Rustbucket May 12, 2015 on 2:52 am

      You are NOT considered a suspect in Germany if you don´t carry a mobile phone.
      Never heard of such a story.
      Many, if not even most, Germans do not want to be tracked.
      Would be strange if they all were arrested for terrorist leanings…..

      • Rustbucket Regina Schulze-Ouska May 12, 2015 on 3:58 pm

        I said “in part”. That was given as additional indication of supposed suspicious behavior.

        • Herbys Rustbucket May 15, 2015 on 4:23 pm

          Just like reading a book on explosives (or the Quran for that matter) is not an indication that you are a terrorist but it could be used as an indicator when trying to assess the probability you are a terrorist. Everything you do, everything you are can be used to analyze your probability of being a terrorist. The “not carrying a cellphone” is just one more thing in that huge list.

          • OldHighlandGuy Herbys May 16, 2015 on 7:07 am

            Actually, your comment is a bit frightening as I have downloaded the Quaran, so that I’ll know the enemy, and just yesterday was watching videos on YouTube about atomic/nuclear bombs blowing up the Bikini Atoll. I am toast.

          • Advitiay Anand Herbys June 6, 2015 on 12:35 am

            Herbys, I really am against your comment. I’m not a Muslim myself but I believe all the religions deserve equal respect. Quran is a sacred book for the Muslims and thus needs to be given as much respect as the Bible and other holy books. And it’s not a book of explosives!

            • Muhammad Umar Khan Advitiay Anand June 8, 2015 on 10:14 pm

              Muslims or Quran is not against the technology if it serves a meaningful purpose to the human life. However, if it provides with the harmful effect to the humanism, snatch away their privacy, breakup their relationships and provide the virtual way istead of real life then we people shoud standup for the bettement of humans.

              And i believe that the following video can invoke us our real inner. LInk: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2990qm_meaning-of-life-muslim-spoken-words_lifestyle

    • Kano180 Rustbucket May 12, 2015 on 4:48 am

      The positives of technological advancement outweighs the negatives. the reality is, there are bad eggs among us that want nothing more than our death – just for being American – surveillance is uncomfortable but necessary. Also your example doesnt really say anything apart from the fact that humans make mistakes – people have been wrongly accused of crimes since we had the ability to make a pointing guesture – probably 100,000 years ago. 1000s of people are found guilty of crimes they didnt comit on a weekly basis – this is something technology can improve, not make worse.

      • richardrichard Kano180 May 27, 2015 on 10:58 am

        How can you be so naive about technology and surveillance?
        It cannot just improve. It’s like saying adding more judges will improve the outcome. If there are systematic errors in your model, adding more resources to it does not help.

        And in an open world (which is what we live in) your models are always incomplete and prone to systematic errors no matter how much technology you throw at it.

        The right solution that any proper engineer picks is backup strategies, not trying to make a system infallible.

        Trying to control “the bad eggs” easily makes you one yourself, but that’s also no news. You might notice that those bad eggs have the exact same way of making propaganda, and argue that any of their actions including (military) aggression is to defend against those that are out to kill us just because we are who we are.

        Seriously, this is frighteningly naive. Maybe you are closer to those you want to control than you think…

      • Lennie Kano180 June 16, 2015 on 12:47 am

        Technology empowers people, it gives fewer people a possibility to make a bigger impact.

        This includes good people, but also bad people. So directly, more technology actually makes it worse, much worse.

        Instead of more surveillance, it’s much better to improve people’s lives and take away the cause of the problem. Starting with food, water (health) and education.

        • thomowen20 Lennie April 10, 2016 on 2:23 pm

          Your comment makes little sense, Lennie. First you state, “So directly, more technology actually makes it worse, much worse.”

          Then in your last paragraph, “it’s much better to improve people’s lives and take away the cause of the problem. Starting with food, water (health) and education.”

          What do you think, in general, will help with food, water, health and education? Yep, that dirty word again, “technology!’

          Can we all agree it’s what we do with it and who uses it? That there will probably be negatives, but on balance more positives as recent history has proven with modern technological developments?

    • OldHighlandGuy Rustbucket May 16, 2015 on 7:00 am

      Even though I have not heard of this incident, I do believe this will happen. I feel that we are very close to that even now. Our phones can be tracked, our newer cars can be tracked, what we do on the internet IS tracked, your credit cards leave a trail, Google street view shows your house and maybe even where you are/were on that day and time. Is there more anyone? Maybe just being an old guy makes me paranoid since I feel this very comment may come back to haunt me.

  • Rustbucket May 11, 2015 on 3:53 pm
  • Darryl Sinclair May 11, 2015 on 4:22 pm

    I consider most of this just wishful thinking… Most everything sited has been planned for a long time, so no predictions there… sorry… And with Obama pressing for more regulation of the Internet, I cannot trust Bicoin to do anything substantial… One flip of the switch and Bitcoin is gone…

    Here in Canada, ISPs have been given the right to not only regulate and throttle one’s Bandwidth, but charge more for more or faster speeds… and that’s what Obama gave to the FTC… The ability to regulate the Internet as a Utility… So, if Cisco comes up with faster routers, it’s simply going to cost the consumer more to use them… Then up goes the cost of ISP services too…
    Some future you’ve predicted…

    If anything, the future is owned and operated by the Elite and we’re the unwitting clones… Personally, I would like to see an Internet 4, where people owned and controlled their own Internet, with NO Government involvement or reliance on this internet we know… Even WiFi needs this internet… What we need is a free and open People’s internet, outside of the control of the Elite and Government… A completely independent system of communication, which can access this Internet, but not controlled by it… Where no one can flip a switch and like the Bitcoin system, is controlled by the computers attached to it…

    If such an independent system were to be developed, No one could pull the plug on Bitcoin and then I might trust Bitcoin… But, as long as Bitcoin is attached to this internet, it’s vulnerable to the Switch…

    As for AI… One thing the cannot build is, an AI computer with Consciousness… So, computers will always be dumb machines, knowing only 2 states… On and Off… Just because they can turn “On and Off” as fast as the human brain and calculate shades of gray, they will not have self-awareness or be capable of Meditating or reach higher levels of Consciousness… I am a Computer Programmer/Systems Analyst and specialize in Robotics. Many friends of mine flipped out on me after watching “iRobot”… They think that Robots were going to take over the world… Highly unlikely… They looked at me as if I were some sort of Mad Scientist… lol DARPA is trying to create Robot Solders… Good luck… One EMP and they’re all out of commission… lol

    As for #3… The trick is and has always been… What questions to ask… People need to know the question before they ask… In fact, they have to know the answer, before they ask the question and then, they will download the data… and their answer is in the data… Look at any question one might have and test it… “How to darn socks?” The current result will include videos and writings… The data… VR might come in handy at this point as the videos might come in the way of VR lessons… where an Avatar actually shows someone how to darn their socks and give essentially one-on-one lessons… Or, if you have seen “Matrix”, the subjects downloaded the program for a particular task, like flying a Helicopter or a Kung Fu style or Darning Socks… Now that would be a “Prediction”… However, there are still problems of knowing what question to ask… Asking for a Kung Fu Style… Which style… There are more than 200 styles and some style are simply methods of Meditation… As for helicopters… Which type and model…??? A Huey? A Black Hawk? Sikorsky? “Perfect Knowledge?” There is no such thing…

    Anyway, I’ll shut up now… lol

    • German Muzzio Darryl Sinclair May 11, 2015 on 5:53 pm

      awesome comment!

    • Colin Fabig Darryl Sinclair May 11, 2015 on 7:22 pm

      This paranoia with government is just that. It’s seems to be a genetic trait mainly found in right wing Americans. The reason America is currently the leading economic and military power in the world is because historically it’s had the best government not because it has harder working or clever people. Over the past 20 years this has changed and countries like China, Korea, and Singapore that have more pragmatically functional and efficient governments with long term vision and the political
      Ability to drive those visions into reality have become the most successful. The world doesn’t need less government it’s needs more government especially at the world level. If you truly believe in real
      Democracy – we should have a one world government with one person one vote fir every human. Of course that form of democracy would be hard for most Westerners to swallow. All these tech predictions are great but Westerners are living in a political paradigm hundreds of years old that is now past it’s due date. It’s time fir new social thinking to catch up with the tech progress

      • richardrichard Colin Fabig May 27, 2015 on 11:17 am

        America is not the leading economic power…
        China is, then Germany.

        It is the leading military power.

        And excuse me, while other nations do not have stellar governments, the USA hardly had ever good ones. Most of it’s economic power is based on it’s media and military power.

        I agree about more participation, but certainly not one voice one vote. You are a small fish in a big pond. The bigger the pond, the more you are ignored, the more you need to adapt, the more you become a number or a mean.

        No, what works best is local governments, and niches, with loose coupling to others. The tighter you make everything the bigger the conflicts. Obviously the more you share the more you have potential for conflicts.

        It’s just like during colonialism, the biggest and worst wars were driven by it, ending in world wars.

        This simply was not possible before, going more in the direction of globalization is very bad. People and countries are simply different, and diversity is good.

        Unifying necessarily creates problems. That’s why globalization drives uniformization to cope. A real loss of diversity.

        Adding a world wide democracy doesn’t solve this magically. The problem is not government or no government, it’s about meeting the needs of individuals while collaborating where possible. And that’s hard.

        • Colin Fabig richardrichard May 27, 2015 on 7:18 pm

          R-R, China is not yet the world’s largest economic power, only on a purchase parity basis. The US is largest military power by $$$ spend, but it would not start and could not really win a war against any significant power like China, Russia or Europe due to the mutually assured destruction of nuclear weapons. But really this are quibbling.

          Your general point seems to be that individuals matter most and that they cannot be properly represented in a world government / world democracy as thei voices will be too small.

          I think that’s looking at it in the wrong way, currently individuals have some representation in most countries, even China, at the local level, a bit less at the national level. but none at the global level unless perhaps you could say Americans sort of control the UN, so Americans have some kind of say. Democracy is not perfect but at least it gives some idea of what the majority of people are thinking. Right now we don’t know what the majority of humans want globally as they have no say no say in serious global concerns like trade agreements, poverty, disease, refugees, war, people trafficking lack of water, the unfair global power of companies and the 0.01% richest people and climate change.

          This wont change at the local level or national level and right now, the global situation is simply chaos run by the 0.01% of rich people and 20 or so national leaders with no global mandate. The world globally needs governance on a more democratic basis.

    • Kano180 Darryl Sinclair May 12, 2015 on 3:40 am

      Hey lighten up a bit! i think some of your sources are outdated/incorrect – for the better:

      1. the internet isnt as centralised as you say (yes there are dominant players but its not centralised) – many nodes could fail without critically disrupting the rest of the internet. How do you “switch off” the internet – thats a silly thing to say.

      2. Whats wrong with paying more to get more? here in Australia our internet sucks! if my isp offered me more bandwith that i had to pay for id be very happy. Unfortunately we only get the option to buy more data – bandwidth is fixed. ISPs favouring certain content/sources over others (in terms of bandwidth) i completely dissagree with – but that will never fly so thats all i have to say about that (market pressure will bring forth alternative isp’s that satisfy the market).

      3. AI – what no strong AI? Ever?! thats like people saying we’ll never fly. Strong AI (AI that eclipses human intelligence in every way – likely after it learns how to re-engineer itself) is inevitable. We’re coming at it from so many angles – only one angle needs to succede. WHEN this strong AI is finally developed (say in 20 – 40yrs) all the other predictions, infact all our human problems, will become irrelevant – our fate will be decided by the strong AI itself – its silly to suggest any human or even a large group of humans could control anything thats a trillion times more intelligent than we are collectively (not without creating another form of AI).

      Computing is branching out, away from the traditional 1s and 0s of serial computing that you say isn’t capable of strong AI. It doesnt matter if you are correct because we have quantum computers and computers that mimic neural networks, self assembling nano-mechanical computers, human brain scanning and emulation, genetic engineering superintelligent organic brains, the list goes on – theres so many avenues torwards strong AI that it is inevitable – sooner or later.
      … this is just one example of one angle heading towards a strong AI: http://mashable.com/2015/05/12/nano-memory-bionic-brain/

      Maybee you’ve got your head stuck in your own specifc field too much, but i see a far brighter future* – i say some of your assertions are way off the mark.

      *our future will ultimately depend on how we manage the coming strong AI. If it doesnt have our interests at heart, or misinterprets our best interests – it could destroy us all or worse. Either way, i agree with Peter – we’re living in exciting times!

      • Kyle Webster Kano180 December 26, 2015 on 5:43 pm

        Thanks Kano saves me several comments. Bitcoin is not so easy to kill 🙂 Also Ethereum sounds a lot like what you talked about – as far as a secure democratic internet.

    • OldHighlandGuy Darryl Sinclair May 16, 2015 on 7:03 am

      Well put. Thank You.

    • richardrichard Darryl Sinclair May 27, 2015 on 11:40 am

      Consciousness is not necessary for robots to do stupid things with bad consequences. The real problem is like with humans, those that are smart enough to do dangerous things, but not smart enough to understand why it’s a bad idea.

      Or simply a disease, a brain attack, heart attack, etc.
      All that can have bad consequences. Hollywood is about hyperbole, the reasoning may be flawed (emotions, consciousness), but technically it’s entirely possible. Especially if you create systems that evolve on their own, they don’t need an agenda or ideology to create buggous/dangerous goals, they can simply evolve.
      If you synchronize the firmware of all robots (you would want to do something like that to save the time and not have to teach every robot again) such a local error could become a global error and then cause damage.

      There are ways to limit the potential of such errors, but while Hollywood draws horror scenarios, it’s not wise to do the opposite.

      > DARPA is trying to create Robot Solders… Good luck… One EMP and they’re all out of
      > commission… Sure, like the remotely controlled drones that are killing people already…
      Adding AI to that is not that hard (you don’t need it to be very smart). It’s mostly a question of engineering. You wouldn’t need much more electronics than now.

      Targets are already picked by machine learning and statistical methods. Humans already base their decisions on such statistical methods. So, replacing the humans isn’t that hard since they do not do much work anyways (which is the real problem, basing decisions on flawed information).

      Yes, robotization in the military is very bad and not an illusion. It’s happening already.

      And while you have a point about perfect knowledge and it’s impossibility to achieve it, your examples are flawed. It’s entirely possible to ask what kung fu style you are interested in or simply pick the most common one, just as we humans would also do…
      You could also use context knowledge, like video/pictures of the helicopter to identify it’s model, or construction plans to guess how to fly it.

      Not easy, but entirely possible.

    • Leonardo Bustos Darryl Sinclair June 15, 2015 on 4:12 pm

      Fascinating comments!

      Here’s my take – There will continue to be the conflict between privacy and protection – until we either self destruct or become a singular consciousness, where we all agree on everything. Anytime someone or some group finds a loophole to exploit to control others to their way of thinking – our privacy and freedoms will inexorably diminish to counteract it until “we are one”

      As far as AI is concerned – I believe the human species 2.0 will become the artificial intelligence, as we choose to become less biological for the purposes of longevity and ultimately immortality.

      Reality as we know it today will be so far removed from future humans, because “IF” we survive, we won’t have to work, worry about food, or worry about our health, death or money.

    • Daniel Bigham Darryl Sinclair July 14, 2015 on 4:36 am

      Thinking about consciousness is something that I’m often drawn to and frustrated that so few other people enjoy thinking about it.

      Something that stood out to me about your post is that you seem to equate consciousness (qualia presumably) very strongly with the ability to behave intelligently. While qualia and behavior are not mutually exclusive, it’s not intuitive to me at all that:

      (!Conscious) -Implies-> (!Intelligent)

  • fabianobirchal May 11, 2015 on 5:43 pm

    Amazing! 😉

    I´m wondering about the new “world” on Education. The 8 billion connected people would (I really wish) be able to study, to learn, to teach: to create and share more and better knowledge than ever before. This could, really, represent the greatest revolution of all times. 😀

  • dobermanmacleod May 11, 2015 on 9:59 pm

    My opinion is that one of the most important changes will be 3D printing and a zero marginal cost economy. The 3D printing revolution, when it fully kicks in will be an example of “extreme productivity,” where each additional unit of goods will be near zero, eliminating profit, and making property exchange in markets unnecessary for many products.

    The democratization of manufacturing means that anyone and eventually everyone can access the means of production, making the question of who should own and control the means of production irrelevant, and capitalism along with it.

    Jeremy Rifkin, author of “The Zero Marginal Cost Society”

    • jguard dobermanmacleod May 12, 2015 on 10:53 am

      And when will “LAND” have zero marginal cost so capitalism is irrelevant? Personally, I prefer beachfront property

      • commandersprocket jguard January 11, 2016 on 2:00 pm

        Zero marginal cost is about the production cost of manufactured goods. Rifkin doesn’t have any property redistribution ideas in his book. He is suggesting that the dominant part of our current economy is based on existing margin in manufactured goods (much of the basis of Adam Smith’s work on market economies), and that those margins will be squeezed to near zero by advancing technology. It’s easy to see that existing property rights in an economy moving towards zero marginal cost could be viewed as move the existing economic power towards “rent seeking” with a higher and higher percentage of income going towards rent (like you see in Silicon Valley now).

  • Lee Lap Fung May 11, 2015 on 11:32 pm

    Hi Peter,

    If all people have all knowledge, would a person be unique?
    Will A.I. have better creativity than human? If yes, could human help to advance civilization at that time?

    • Kano180 Lee Lap Fung May 12, 2015 on 4:26 am

      Your second question concerns me also – what will be our value if AI surpasses us in every way?! emotionally, creatively and all!

      • richardrichard Kano180 May 27, 2015 on 12:01 pm

        What is your value if someone earns more, is smarter than you, better looking than you, more successful than you?

        The same kind of question.

        Value is not defined by comparing to others or competing. It’s deeply ingrained in our society, but it’s wrong. This matters when you fight, but constant fight is hardly an enjoyable state, even if you win.

        You don’t need to be the “best” by any measure to create or do something useful or meaningful. You don’t need to put someone else down to feel good. If something has value it has value. Market value is not a proper value.

        If healing cancer becomes very cheap and accessible from many companies, does it loose its value? None the companies is at the “top” anymore, so it must have no value, right?

        Also the idea that you can measure the quality of something is a flaw in itself, you measure *quantities*. You can’t measure how creatively or emotionally good someone is. There is always a personal judgment that goes into this. There is no real objectivity, just inter-subjectivity.

        If you are scared about not being unique anymore. Robots will be different from us. The idea that we are all exchangeable and comparable comes from measuring and comparing based on that. This is always just a sampling and incomplete.

        If all life is based on comparing to others and beating them, it seems to be wasted. So maybe if this scares you (besides being dominated by machines/robots which is not unreasonable) then maybe it’s time to remember what makes you happy, and not what makes you feel greed/triumph.

  • pbalrog May 12, 2015 on 1:00 am

    What about the move to autonomous vehicles? That’s going to mean bigger real changes to most people’s lives than most of the above.
    Not going to happen in ten years? I think you’ll be surprised how rapidly the change will happen once it starts for real.

  • Sunny Cheruvu May 12, 2015 on 1:18 am

    A Substantial Leap! I wonder if we can acquire the ability to create our next moment which I believe is a predetermined state as our brain predicts beforehand. The possibility of the human potential to unravel the predetermined moments and the intricate delicacy of why we are here. The quantum moment of self-awareness and molding every moment to perfection of self and leading us to the secrecy of cells binding with neurons. I call it Neuro-Cryptography… the time is ticking!

    • Kano180 Sunny Cheruvu May 12, 2015 on 4:31 am

      Holy moly! You should definitely consider a career in politics or journalism.

      • richardrichard Kano180 May 27, 2015 on 12:12 pm

        Yeah, that indeed seems an appropriate career path 😉

    • richardrichard Sunny Cheruvu May 27, 2015 on 12:12 pm

      What is quantum moment even supposed to mean? Molding a moment to perfection??
      Neuro-Cryptography….

      A little less bullshit bingo would be in order.

      The predetermined state of the brain is nothing that has anything to do with predicting future. It’s simply some processes that are faster than others, so some brain parts already “know” what they will be doing, while others brain parts are not informed yet.

  • Mikko Guo May 12, 2015 on 1:23 am

    Leonardo Da Vin Ci says, everything that can be dreamed of can be built.
    only 10 years to go.

    • Kano180 Mikko Guo May 12, 2015 on 4:33 am

      Like (sorry theres no like button)

  • Zuse May 12, 2015 on 7:53 am

    I think 2025 for the computing power equivalent to the human brain is quiet pessimistic. Kurzweil originally wrote, that it would be around 2023. However recently I read that he changed his prediction to 2020, thanks to the use of gpu. (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2015/04/23/the-coming-problem-of-our-iphones-being-more-intelligent-than-us/ )

    • Martin Šulák Zuse May 12, 2015 on 11:29 am

      It is actually overoptimistic. Maybe they think of some specialized hw like analogue memristor network. Kurzweil believed in neverending exponential grow and Moore Law. Moore Law no longer apply to digital CMOS silicon chips.
      Silicon faith do not bother me much and mind upload is not way I want to go. I would rather see breaktroughs in quantum computing a stop wasting time and money in CMOS. Quantum computer can simulate all biology virtually and bring aging reversal decades earlier.

      • matmos101 Martin Šulák May 12, 2015 on 2:19 pm

        Kurzweil subscribes to his own Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Intelligence. He believes IT progresses exponentially in a series of S waves as technology paradigms explode, plateau, then fade out and are replaced by new paradigms that keep the exponential growth going in terms of computation per second per dollar. He’s counting on a new paradigm to replace conventional integrated circuits, so Moore’s Law which addresses 2D transistor density, will no longer be relevant. We went from mechanical relays, to vacuum tubes, to integrated circuits, and now will be moving to 3d architectures which Intel has already begun to implement. So I don’t know whether to call this optimistic or pessimistic. Seems like a reasonable projection based on historical events but whether we’ll encounter a particularly intractable problem is always an open question.

        • Martin Šulák matmos101 May 12, 2015 on 9:24 pm

          FinFets, TriGate and other so called “3D” structures are indeed 3D, made of several layers. But with this logic almost all silicon chips are 3D. There are layers of insulators, P-channels, L-channels and mettalic conductors. IT stall since 2005 is very frustrating for me. Not only CPU are not growing their speed as fast as in 90’th but DRAM access latency are stalling even more. DRAM latency is about ten times shorter then in 80’th.

          • Zuse Martin Šulák May 13, 2015 on 2:15 am

            It is true, that moore’s law has slowed down in recent years (they simply can’t get much smaller due to heisenberg’s uncertainty principle). But the point of paradigm shifts is true nonetheless. 3d integration is an important point, at least in the memory domain many chips are already 3d (Samsung and Qualcomm). Now many company’s (like Intel and Qualcomm) intend to enter the logic domain with monolithic 3d integrated circuits. 3d integration however is just one important move, parallel computing is an other, therefore gpus are that important. For instance most gpus already have 4 or 6 cores today, which can communicate with each other. So if you parallise computing you are 4 to 6 times faster. That doesn’t help for many programs as they exist today (actually to do one step at a time). But we already see a shift from programmable computing (programmed by hand) to cognitive computing (learning algorithms that are “thought”; like deep learning or Watson or self driving cars…). And like the brain these systems can work extraordinary in parallel (our brain for instance runs on just 200 Hz). IBM just released a chip called “TrueNorth” with over 4000 cores on one single chip which “artificial synapses” allowing them to communicate. It is explicitly designed for cognitive computing. In the next step we could go in the 3rd dimension and combine the benefits of both. So the 6th paradigm of computing as Kurzweil calls it is already one the brink.

  • Zuse May 12, 2015 on 8:07 am

    I believe driverless cars and the whole biotech sector (genetics, stem cells…) are important to note as well.

  • Martin Šulák May 12, 2015 on 11:31 am

    “Each of us will be able to regrow a heart, liver, lung or kidney when we need it, instead of waiting for the donor to die.”
    In 2025 ? Really ?

  • Hà Nguyễn May 12, 2015 on 1:30 pm

    ending wars, ending poverty, AI, clean energy, I give you time to do that (not 10 years though)
    I don really need to be immortal and have every disease cured, but given time, it will hapen.

    But I really doubt that “we are living in the most exciting time ever”, because I dont see these happening:
    – stop enslaving/eating animals
    – colonize Mars (like for real, not just make shuttles)
    – give up the idea of having to have jobs

    • str0yr Hà Nguyễn May 12, 2015 on 6:16 pm

      1. We have successfully grown edible meat in a lab. Science is working towards a utilitarian society.
      2. Sending probes to Mars to survey it is PART of colonization. We can’t go there safely until we understand how to survive there effectively, where to find water, where the best places to build are, etc..
      3. I’ve already given up full time work for a less stressful part time career and I’m actually earning more money working 2 days per week than 5. These things are beginning to happen already, many jobs have been automated out of existence. As a response, society has created meaningless jobs to replace meaningful jobs, which don’t achieve anything at all, but provide a way to further distribute wealth along the same old worn out economic model. There’s also change occurring in work itself, such as popular micro contracting services like elance, odesk and fiverr where people work on their own terms.

      Remember, this is only the beginning. Don’t pour cold water on a series of predictions because you don’t see them happening yet.

    • Colin Fabig Hà Nguyễn May 14, 2015 on 12:12 am

      love your ethical thinking, but forget colonizing Mars – that’s a waste of money.

      Humans will never in any real numbers physically leave the planet as such. Humans may only have an evolutionary lifespan left of a few hundred thousands years and the planet will be fine until then. Transhumans probably neither, but silicon ( or other material based) AI, who were initially created by humans will use their immortality and non-biological basis to colonise not only our solar system, but the universe at large. Whether the advanced AI decide to spawn humans on those planets from advanced biotech when they get there is another question…I mean would humans populate a far off planet with earth animals if they ever got there?

      • masic_2000 Colin Fabig May 14, 2015 on 6:10 pm

        A few hundreds of thousands of years ?? Try less than a thousand !! The current rate of shifting of our geomagnetic forces or even the next ice age if it happens will be way before then. We won’t be here long enough to witness all the fruits of our intelligence.

        • Colin Fabig masic_2000 May 14, 2015 on 6:21 pm

          I’l read up on that – but didn’t we survive the the last ice age 10,000 years ago, when we were still cave men?

  • matmos101 May 12, 2015 on 2:50 pm

    He definitely should have included robotics in this list. Whether AI will be ever be truly conscious is irrelevant for the purposes of discussing disruption to our society. If AI can merely simulate conscious intelligence by processing visual, tactile, and sound data from the real world in such a way as to respond flexibly and reliably, the majority of our workforce will be displaced. Keep a sharp eye on the upcoming Darpa Robotics Challenge. Take note of the advancements over last year’s trials. Then project out over 10 years of exponential improvements in computation and incremental improvements in engineering. You’ll have a multi-purpose android, capable of performing dexterous execution of random tasks in random environments. The missing piece of the puzzle from the Zero Marginal Cost society. Buy a piece of land, bring along robot, 3d printer, power source, and raw materials, and you can build just about anything…including more robots and 3d printers which you can sell or distribute freely as you choose. I see massive deflation across the board as inevitable.

  • matmos101 May 12, 2015 on 3:00 pm

    Blockchain frightens me. The author seems to see it as some sort of hopeful development, because it eliminates the role of government monetary policy in economics. But the single way out I can think of for the coming massive deflation/unemployment armageddon is for governments to initiate a guaranteed living income. This is only possible if central banks continue to produce the viable currencies of the world. Who can we turn to for a free and equitable distribution of Bitcoins when there are no meaningful tasks or goods for the average citizen to produce in exchange for them? The Winklevoss twins?

    • Colin Fabig matmos101 May 14, 2015 on 12:02 am

      Don’t really understand blockchain but definitely know the world future solution means more government not less. The worlds most successful countries historically have had big governments from The Roman Empire onwards. The idea of small governments will take us back to a tribal system of warlords – hopefully blockchain doesn’t enable this or we are all back in a Mad Max movie.

      • richardrichard Colin Fabig May 27, 2015 on 12:33 pm

        Actually the most successful countries currently are pretty small if you go after income and well being, health, education and longevity.

        Control and power is not the solution. Actually the Roman Empire was created by war lords that conquered more and more. In the end it got weak and incapable.

        • Colin Fabig richardrichard May 27, 2015 on 10:25 pm

          The most successful decent sized economy over the past 50 years has been Singapore, with an authoritarian big government, who pay their government workers the highest government salaries in the world and where the government itself owns very profitable massive corporations. Next is maybe South Korea with democratic politics, but however is in control still runs very big government. Like China, the next most successful country over past 50 years. These are also countries that have had no wars since they have had a strong government.

          Then the outlier oil countries and maybe tax havens ( but you can’t really include them as examples because if everyone has that oil or were tax havens they would be successful)

  • ejsilva May 12, 2015 on 4:09 pm

    I agree that we are living in the most exciting time ever, and appreciate the air of positive thinking Peter has brought forward. Simply thinking about how many people in the world will have acces to comment on an article like in the next ten+ years is simply mind-boggling. Growing up with immigrant parents who saw their first TV at age 18, I have been witness to technology playing an amazing role to those without, and I am excited for what is to come.

    Thanks Peter

    • Pat Talbot ejsilva May 12, 2015 on 4:17 pm

      I strongly disagree with the idea that we will have perfect knowledge. All information we obtain is subject to numerous kinds of uncertainty. It may be incomplete, conflict with other data or opinions, chaotic,
      obsolete, subject to random or systematic uncertainty, have data field missing, or be deliberately falsified.

      • richardrichard Pat Talbot May 27, 2015 on 12:34 pm

        Very well said.

      • failcake Pat Talbot June 3, 2015 on 1:03 am

        I think you’re confusing data with precision or truth. One can coherently say they have practically perfect knowledge while acknowledging that such data lacks full precision. What’s one divided by three? Do you have perfect knowledge of it, or only a specified precision? Do you know the temperature? To 15 decimal places? At some specified coordinates in space and time? How precise are the coordinates? Knowledge is always limited in precision. Certainty is merely an estimate. Perfection is qualified. The very nature of knowledge allows only limited perfection. It’s a question of epistemology, not facts. When someone speaks of perfect knowledge it’s just a colloquialism for unimaginably vast knowledge.

  • Lonie May 14, 2015 on 8:06 am

    Kurzweil’s Law, Moore’s Law? What about a repeal of the “perpetual copyright” Law or adjustment to Patent Law? I don’t see that as changing in the next 10 years and changing that to allow hoarded Intellectual Property into the Public Domain opens up a world of improvement to what we already know.

  • masterlock01 May 14, 2015 on 3:27 pm

    Peter Diamandis, you seem to overlook the profoundly disruptive effect that machine intelligence and robotics will have on the labor market. Maybe you think this won’t be a problem in 2025? Surely you’ve read Martin Ford’s “The Lights in the Tunnel.” What happens when the rate at which human jobs are automated vastly exceeds the rate at which new human jobs are created?

    • failcake masterlock01 June 3, 2015 on 1:06 am

      People will take care of their children and fellow humans, they will stop having children, and/or they will die. In other words: just like now.

  • Ramona Pandele May 15, 2015 on 6:32 am

    In 15 years from now, I believe the human brain will evolve higher than that! 🙂
    But, of course I’d love the equivalent for 1000$! Who wouldn’t enjoy a second brain?!

  • James Bow May 15, 2015 on 1:00 pm

    Has anybody here crafted a response to CGP Grey’s “Humans Need Not Apply” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU)? His thesis is, as we get autonomous cars and other high-level robots, we start putting people out of work at a rate that exceeds the Great Depression. How do you deal with the fact that many of these accomplishments, while brilliant and exciting, could render more than a quarter of the population not just unemployed, but unemployable?

    I’m thinking that this future might have to come with a National Minimum Income, or something, to ensure that everybody has enough money to pay for food, water, shelter and some amount of consumer goods (since, after all, why bother making this stuff if there aren’t anybody around with the money to buy it?), while we leave the robots to do all the work. That sounds frighteningly like Communism, but it would be better than anarchy.

    Thoughts, anyone?

    • matmos101 James Bow May 15, 2015 on 1:41 pm

      I think you’re right. I think that productive capacity will continue to increase, while man hours will dwindle. I expect this will be a relatively smooth evolution with a sharp discontinuity when “I, Robot” – style robots are introduced as a product. Suddenly you buy one $20,000 robot and no longer have to pay plumbers, dishwashers, gardeners, carpenters, nannies, dog walkers, chauffeurs, electricians, etc. You can even have it build goods for you that you can try to sell. You’ll also rent out your robot to anybody that needs those services as a source of extra income. And the cost of those services will be driven down by competition as others peddle their robots’ skills on the market. If you own a convenience store, or a laundromat, or a landscaping service, you’d be silly to hire humans. They’re just too much trouble.
      So I expect a sharp, drastic rise in unemployment at this point that will constitute major turning point in our society. For conservative folks, they always have maintained that good quality people pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, work hard, and succeed in this country. Whatever truth that notion once held, it will dealt a deathblow with the advent of the I,Robot. Even the TeaPartiers will accede to the demand for a universal expansion of welfare when none of their children can find employment. In addition, the pressure to institue this coming from big business will be immense. They do, after all, need as many consumers as possible to have money in order to capitalize on their immense productive capacity.
      The only benign alternative I can think of, is if energy, robotics, manufacturing, etc all become decentralized to the point where capitalism is completely irrelevant. For instance, if a community can buy a handful of robots and sophisticated 3d printers, then use them to create and install solar panels and batteries, then use them to create more robots and 3d printers, etc. There would be zero cost to the community to distribute all open source goods for free. The same thing is true down to the level of the individual.
      I’d really like to see some smart sci-fi addressing this future in a non-apocalyptic way. We seem to have no playbook in hand for what’s coming.

      • James Bow matmos101 May 15, 2015 on 2:10 pm

        Actually, now that you mention it, there is such a story. It’s “Manna”, by Marshall Brain. It posits different approaches this could take: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

        • matmos101 James Bow May 15, 2015 on 3:16 pm

          Thanks for the link! We’re definitely on the same page, but I’d wish for a more fully fleshed out story that conveys the transformation of human culture without all the dry exposition. Somebody should start working on a mini-series called Singularity tracing the life paths of people from several walks of life through next 30 years or so against a backdrop of technological progress as envisioned by Kurzweil.

      • Colin Fabig matmos101 May 17, 2015 on 8:55 pm

        All agreed – and strong government will become far more important in a world of abundance / hyperdeflation. Humans are also pretty smart and our amazing ability for social co-operation will see most of us, living lives in the future that will be as utopian to us now, as our lives would be to people of the middle ages. When the average person does not have to even have to work for, let alone fight for resources, the focus will be on enjoyment of life and a massive increase in altruism and social capital.

      • Lennie matmos101 June 9, 2015 on 4:08 pm

        First of all: the increase in productivity and decrease in the percentage of people employed in the US has already happened years ago !: http://thebreakthrough.org/images/main_image/productivity_and_employment_in_the_US_1947-2011.png

        Second: the current economic model does not work with a very large population within income. If you don’t have enough people that can buy products and services then the economy doesn’t work. So we will be forced to change society. Even people which made a lot of money from creating and selling businesses already understand this right now.

        If you think only robots will take make certain jobs irrelevant you are very much mistaken. It is happening across the board. Computers can already read scans of the body of cancer patients better than the average oncologist. Oncologist is one of the job which takes the most years of education. This isn’t a robot, it’s software running on a computer and these clearly are not unskilled jobs.

        The real problem is: 1. let’s say in a few years we won’t need oncologists any more, how many years of education will they need to get a similarly paid job ? 2. we have no idea how to predict which kinds of tasks will be automated away. So we don’t know what education people need.

        • Lennie Lennie June 16, 2015 on 1:33 am

          I made a typo: within income should have been: without income.

    • Colin Fabig James Bow May 17, 2015 on 9:28 pm

      A national minimum income called the dole is already paid to unemployable people in most Western countries outside of the United States and has been for 70 years without much fuss, except the richest get taxed a bit more – but it’s not communism.Communism would be everyone getting equal wages, irrespective of who owns the capital helping fund the production of goods and services. As AI and robots start doing the majority of the work – the rich will need to be taxed more to re-distribute to the rest of society. Once again historically not a big deal, even in the 1960/70’s the rich were being taxed at almost double the rates they are now and there were still many very rich people and the rest of society (middle and working class) were actually better off then comparatively, than they are today after adjusting for inflation.

    • failcake James Bow June 3, 2015 on 1:17 am

      The least unfair solution in the near term is to disallow people from having children they can’t realistically take care of, not unlike applying for a mortgage. If someone has a child they expect me to take care of they are imposing force on me. The solution is a transition period of welfare followed by a dramatic decline in world population followed by utopian abundance and thus unrestricted population growth again. The only obvious near-term alternatives are the equivalent of slavery (small number of people work to support everyone else), mass poverty, or mass cullings. The ultimate outcome should be utopian abundance. The question is how unfair are the steps to get us there, and how much suffering are we willing to accept. I think minimizing unfair steps and suffering is preferable.

      • Jezra failcake June 4, 2015 on 2:31 pm

        Look at Africa, children being born into severe poverty, suffering and dying for decades. Maybe start there.

    • Lennie James Bow June 9, 2015 on 3:54 pm

      Most US economist I’ve heard about this talk about something which in the US was talked about before which is called ‘negative income tax’ instead of universal garenteed income and so on.

  • dolphin May 16, 2015 on 9:33 pm

    2025 is just as far as 2005 was. To be fair, let’s assume that the change in next decade would be 2 times more than the last decade (because that’s how it has been in last few decades). So, looking back at the achievements in last decade and doubling up on them doesn’t quite take us to where this article is predicting.

    Unless, the rate of change (or the rate of rate of change) changes dramatically for the next 10 years. But such changes don’t happen without involvement of external forces from outside of the system.

    So, I think these predictions are outside the projection cone (dotted lines into future)

  • Luc Fayard May 17, 2015 on 2:39 am
  • Mitesh Ashar May 20, 2015 on 12:37 pm

    Two assumptions in this paragraph:

    1. The global population will remain 8 billion in 2025.
    2. 1 Mbps will be adequately enough for 2025.

    These two assumptions need to be acknowledged and data needs to be extrapolated.

    • Lennie Mitesh Ashar June 16, 2015 on 1:38 am

      1. current calculations predict the maximum of global population will be 9 or 10. Still a lot of people. I read recently we’ve reached ‘peak children’.

  • bks May 21, 2015 on 7:16 am

    For truly innovative technology, it takes about 25 years to move from a laboratory proof-of-principle to consumer “disruption”. First cell-phone 1973. Birth of the Interent 1969. ENIAC 1943. First airplane 1903. First radio 1880. If there is anything that will be available to the consumer in 2025 it will already be working in the lab today, and that is not true of most of the list.

    IMO, there has been absolutely nothing found in the first 15 years of the 21st century that will have the profound effect on human health that the campaign to stop smoking did. An Apple Watch will not make you healthier, but getting out and walking will. KISS.

    –bks

      • matmos101 bks May 27, 2015 on 11:32 am

        It’s reasonable to be skeptical about predictions, but it’s foolish to discount these predictions outright. Your point about 25 year intervals being required for the journey from lab to disruption ignores several facts. First, the innovations that are with us today, e.g., worldwide communications, easily accessible massive computation resources, greatly improved logistics and transportation, improved access to financial resources, all conspire to greatly shorten the lab-to-market time lag. Second, even if the 25 year law holds true, there are technologies that have been in development since before 2000 that promise to drastically effect lifespans (lab on chip, stem cell therapies, organ cloning, whole body transplantation, to name just a few). Who knows if any particular prediction will come true? But the principle that each advance gives us new improved tools to create the next innovation that was previously impossible, along with the next generation of tools, etc., does seem like a fairly obvious feedback mechanism for accelerating change.

  • Tom Glod May 21, 2015 on 11:46 am

    The consciousness of mankind will also change, and that will change many things we cannot forsee in our predictions for future time. The implications of a co-operative and non-competitive world are so staggering that we cannot really imagine it.

    It doesn’t happen overnight, but it is happening, and in 10 years, the motivations of the people of this planet could be different than they are right now. Predicting technology is not that hard. We just have to make sure that we mature to use the technology wisely.

  • Colin Fabig May 27, 2015 on 10:26 pm

    Not “would be successful” but ” wouldn’t be successful”

  • Juan Murillo Arias June 1, 2015 on 12:17 pm

    How about energy? in 2040 we’ll have gone down the slope of carbon based energy production, and we’ll have found that raw materials to develope and extend renewals are insufficient as a world scale alternative… scaring

  • sleicest June 1, 2015 on 11:52 pm

    Outlining technical changes without concurrently outlining social or economic ones is fine but merely step one. All-pervasive technologies won’t respect traditional country borders, let alone the governments trying to control them. There is simply usefulness. Use of technology to humans and then at some point, usefulness of technology to itself.

    Quite possibly, the advance of technology will first drive massive disparities of wealth and power and then eventually flip over to rationed wealth and power when AI takes over. Human terms like democracy, capitalism, socialism, love, hate, dishonesty and morality will be consigned to the history books.

    Humans at war with each other, running semi-efficient governments, or arguing about what the social and political problem even is, is like a bunch of athletes arguing on the starting line, while AI runs the race and wins gold.

  • Patrick Chu June 4, 2015 on 2:49 pm

    I’m relieved to learn that the billions of people who barely get enough to eat will suddenly get computers in 2025 to make use of that 1 megabit per second.

  • Patrick Chu June 4, 2015 on 2:51 pm

    According to the Wikipedia article on FLOPS, a cycle today costs $0.02 in January 2015, so 10 teracycles would cost $3200 today. So if you have a little more than $1000, you could buy that human brain today. Why wait until 2025?

    • Fred222 Patrick Chu June 9, 2015 on 7:51 pm

      I am not following your math on the cost of a human brain capability. So here is my math:

      January 2015 -$0.08/gigaflop
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS

      We achieve one Human Brain capability (2 * 10^16 cps) for $1,000 around the year 2023
      http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

      January 2015 Human Brain Cost Estimate = 2 *10^{16} Flops x $0.08/gigaflop =10^{10} x $0.16 = 1.6 Trillion dollars.

      • Fred222 Fred222 June 10, 2015 on 5:29 am

        I correct myself as follows:
        January 2015 Human Brain Cost Estimate = 2 *10^{16} Flops x $0.08/gigaflop =10^{10} x $0.16 = 1.6 Billion dollars.

        • Fred222 Fred222 June 15, 2015 on 9:29 am

          Another Math Correction. . .

          January 2015 Human Brain Cost Estimate = 2 *10^{16} Flops x $0.08/10^{9} flop =10^{7} x $0.16 = 1.6 Million dollars.

  • Yamandú Giménez Wenzel September 9, 2015 on 7:50 am

    The true value of AI is not “query and response”, the true value is actualy building, or creating something that would take tousend of hours to a human brain. ie: “please create a sail boat that will perform better when it rains”. “Please design a new fabric that auto-heals when its ripped appart”…

  • Kikubarim El Mohiya October 21, 2015 on 7:11 am

    in the future, i predict there is no more toilet. We can directly shit and piss in our pant then it will go into some small cube/device in our pocket. It can then be recycle to produce bio energy

  • Mihai Pruna October 27, 2015 on 7:00 am

    love the toned down predictions, it used to be “singularity, super-intelligent machines, transcendence etc” now it’s like : we get a fitbit and a better Siri

  • Paramendra Kumar Bhagat January 9, 2016 on 11:27 am

    I hope the age of abundance readily translates into a world free of poverty and disease.

  • Frankas Kulikauskas Wurft April 9, 2016 on 10:40 pm

    Elysium

  • Steen Schledermann April 9, 2016 on 11:27 pm

    Can’t wait to be part of this future 😀

  • [email protected] June 9, 2016 on 1:02 am

    Great thinking. But all this digitalisation requires massive amounts of energy, which will not be available. ICT is fastest and most energy hungry industry in the world, 3-6 % global energy consumption and growing fast. Maybe cold fusion will save the day, but unless we solve energy efficiency and sustainable energy sources the future above is an utopia. More nuance is to be found in the Iceberg Matrix.