I like Rodney Brooks, but I find the way he does these predictions to be very obtuse and subject to a lot of self-congratulatory interpretation. Highlighting something green that is "NET2021" and then saying he was right when something happened or didn't happen, when something related happened in 2024 mean that he predicted it right or wrong, or is everything subject to arbitrary interpretation? Where are the bold predictions? Sounds like a lot of fairly obvious predictions with a lot of wiggle room to determine if right or wrong.
NET2021 means that he predicted that the event would take place on or after 2021, so happening in 2024 satisfies that. Keep in mind these are six-year-old predictions.
Are you wishing that he had tighter confidence intervals?
If the predictions are meant to be bold, then yes. If they're meant to be fairly obvious, then no.
For example, saying that flying cars will be in widespread use NET 2025 is not much of a prediction. I think we can all say that if flying cars will be in widespread use, it will happen No Earlier Than 2025. It could happen in 2060, and that NET 2025 prediction would still be true. He could mark it green in 2026 and say he was right, that, yes, there are no flying cars, and so mark his scorecard another point in the correct column. But is that really a prediction?
A bolder prediction would be, say "Within 1-2 yrs of XX".
So what is Rodney Brooks really trying to predict and say? I'd rather read about what the necessary gating conditions are for something significant and prediction-worthy to occur, or what the intractable problems are that would make something not be possible within a predicted time, rather than reading about him complain about how much overhype and media sensation there is in the AI and robotics (and space) fields. Yes, there is, but that's not much of a prediction or statement either, as it's fairly obvious.
There's also a bit of an undercurrent of complaint in this long article about how the not-as-sexy or hyped work he has done for all those years has gone relatively unrewarded and "undeserving types" are getting all the attention (and money). And as such, many of the predictions and commentary on them read more as rant than as prediction.
Presumably you read the section where Brooks highlights all the forecasts executives were making in 2017? His NET predictions act as a sort of counter-prediction to those types of blind optimistic, overly confident assertions.
In that context, I’d say his predictions are neither obvious nor lacking boldness when we have influential people running around claiming that AGI is here today, AI agents will enter the workforce this year, and we should be prepared for AI-enabled layoffs.
The NET estimation is supposed to be a counter to the irrational exuberance of media and PR. E.g. musk says they'll get humans to Mars in 2020, and the counter is "I don't think that will happen until at least 2030".
"NET2021" means "no earlier than 2021". So, if nothing even arguably similar happened until 2024, that sounds like a very correct prediction.
Whether that's worth congratulating him about depends on how obvious it was, but I think you really need to measure "fairly obvious" at the time the prediction is made, not seven years later. A lot of things that seem "fairly obvious" now weren't obvious at all then.
