Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2026 Predictions Scorecard

rodneybrooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: 2026 Predictions Scorecard

#31

Post by LeifCarrotson »

bhelkey wrote: post #18
kqr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Predicting well absent lawyering is really hard! If someone else wants to try I warmly recommend starting with e.g. the ACX 2026 prediction contest: https://www.metaculus.com/tournament/ACX2026/

> Predicting well absent lawyering is really hard! The author engages in rules lawyering of the evaluation of the predictions . The original predictions are clear. Another example of this is the author's prediction that no robot will be able to navigate around the clutter in a US home, "What is easy for humans is still very, very hard for robots." The author evaluated this prediction as not being met, "...I don't cou…

Those robots are not "navigating AROUND the clutter", there are no consumer-deployed object recognition physics models that let a robot say "that's a ball that will roll, that's a shirt that will tangle, that's a sheet of paper that may slip", they're just charging chaotically through it. If you allow skittering robots, do you exclude a 90s RC car with the trigger taped down?

Re: 2026 Predictions Scorecard

#32

Post by Strilanc »

> By late 2024 the biggest numbers that had been factored by an actual digital quantum computer had 35 bits (citing https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.14397v1 )

This is incorrect. The cited reference says "N https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.7007 ). As far as I know, only N=15 has been factored on a quantum computer in a no-shenanigans way.

It's conceivable that current ion trap machines could do a no-shenanigans N=21.... but anyone judging progress in quantum computing by largest-number-factored is looking at the wrong metric (for now). You won't see that metric move meaningfully until quantum error correction is done spinning up.

Re: 2026 Predictions Scorecard

#33

Post by anthk »

- Vulcano from Canary Island erupting

- Another one from Italy too

- Weird space event

- Odd geometry based discovery on Cosmologics

- Also, DNA's codons' layout will have something to say too

- Rust on Linux takes over Intel iGPU drivers (sadly). Tons of Linux distros either get OpenBSD's Xenocara or NetBSD's base X.org to get stuff working.

- Trump is impeached and declared mentally challenged due to an age related dementia in order to avoid prison time (and to avoid a global economy crash).

Re: 2026 Predictions Scorecard

#34

Post by dvh »

weddpros wrote: post #24
dvh wrote: post #6

So the shor's on real qc is still only 35.

And the record is N=35=7x5, that's 6 bits not 35 bits as the author is saying... Maybe he'd revise his prediction on QC if he knew?

35bit was on simulated quantum computer (on a classical supercomputer)

Re: 2026 Predictions Scorecard

#35

Post by Ntrails »

bhelkey wrote: post #18
kqr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Predicting well absent lawyering is really hard! If someone else wants to try I warmly recommend starting with e.g. the ACX 2026 prediction contest: https://www.metaculus.com/tournament/ACX2026/

> Predicting well absent lawyering is really hard! The author engages in rules lawyering of the evaluation of the predictions . The original predictions are clear. Another example of this is the author's prediction that no robot will be able to navigate around the clutter in a US home, "What is easy for humans is still very, very hard for robots." The author evaluated this prediction as not being met, "...I don't cou…

I read the prediction and I see it meaning "I don't think we'll have tech for useful house robots in the average American Family Home"

The natural interpretation (for me!) was predicated on navigation - implying consideration and appropriate response to the clutter. Not merely ignoring it by being robust to the problems it engenders to movement/balance/etc.

Re: 2026 Predictions Scorecard

#36

Post by 1970-01-01 »

Aurornis wrote: post #16
1970-01-01 wrote: post #5

Flying cars are nearly ready. That prediction of it not happening until 2036 is going to be set false the soonest. Alef Aero cars just started manufacturing. https://www.flyingmag.com/california-firm-first-flying-car-p...

> According to Dukhovny, a Model A prototype has been flying for years. However, there are no videos of the vehicle making the transition from a car to an aircraft. It will need to prove that capability, as well as its adherence to the rules of both the road and the sky. > Dukhovny said the Model A will initially be certified as a “low-speed vehicle” on the ground, limiting it to about 25 mph on public roadways. Soun…

In context with the requirement of

"A flying car can be purchased by any US resident if they have enough money."

and the prediction level being

"There is a real possibility that this will not happen at all by 2050."

This production fulfills his requirements of the prediction becoming true much sooner than expected. He could go get one today with unlimited money.

Re: 2026 Predictions Scorecard

#37

Post by bhelkey »

wpietri wrote: post #27
bhelkey wrote: post #11

Of the predictions I read, I found that the author engages in pretty heavy handed rules lawyering in order to make their predictions accurate. For example, the author takes the stance that current self driving cars (Waymo, Zoox) do not count as self driving. The justification being that a human operator is involved some small fraction of the time. By law, Waymo must report disengagements in California. In 2024, Waymo…

As somebody who has been reading them since the first year, I think you have it wrong. That self-driving prediction was always about Level 5 autonomy. What's changed between now and then is that we've basically stopped talking about that, instead accepting intervention-as-a-service companies as self driving.

The author quotes that their predictions are for Level 4 autonomy:

> The definition, or common understanding, of what self driving cars really means has changed since my post on predictions eight years ago. At that time self driving cars meant that the cars would drive themselves to wherever they were told to go with no further human control inputs. It was implicit that it meant level 4 driving. Note that there is also a higher level of autonomy, level 5, that is defined.

Re: 2026 Predictions Scorecard

#38

Post by bhelkey »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #31
bhelkey wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Predicting well absent lawyering is really hard! The author engages in rules lawyering of the evaluation of the predictions . The original predictions are clear. Another example of this is the author's prediction that no robot will be able to navigate around the clutter in a US home, "What is easy for humans is still very, very hard for robots." The author evaluated this prediction as not being met, "...I don't cou…

Those robots are not "navigating AROUND the clutter", there are no consumer-deployed object recognition physics models that let a robot say "that's a ball that will roll, that's a shirt that will tangle, that's a sheet of paper that may slip", they're just charging chaotically through it. If you allow skittering robots, do you exclude a 90s RC car with the trigger taped down?

I would agree with you if the author wrote, "I don't count as home robots small four legged robots as they don't navigate around clutter, they just go over it" but the author didn't write that.

The author quoted two constraints (safe around children, must include a form factor able to preform an action) not specified.

The author projected that a lab demo of capabilities would not occur. I don't see safety for children as necessary for a lab demo.

Re: 2026 Predictions Scorecard

#39

Post by bhelkey »

strange_quark wrote: post #12
bhelkey wrote: post #11

Of the predictions I read, I found that the author engages in pretty heavy handed rules lawyering in order to make their predictions accurate. For example, the author takes the stance that current self driving cars (Waymo, Zoox) do not count as self driving. The justification being that a human operator is involved some small fraction of the time. By law, Waymo must report disengagements in California. In 2024, Waymo…

On the contrary, it’s the companies doing the lawyering. A disengagement is when the vehicle reverts fully back to manual control. Tele-operation does not count as a disengagement, and the frequency of tele-operation intervention is a closely guarded industry secret.

Oh interesting, I had figured tele-operation would count as a disengagements.

Looking into reports you mentioned in a child comment, CNN reports Cruise needed human assistance every ~5 miles [1]. And I certainly wouldn't call a system that needs assistance every ~5-10 minutes Level 4 self driving.

Subjectively, it appeared Waymo was significantly better than Cruise in 2023 but without data it's hard know what that means in terms of human intervention.

If Waymo needed human assistance every 10-20 minutes, I would agree that it also doesn't qualify as Level 4 autonomous.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/06/cruise-confirms-robotaxis-re...

Re: 2026 Predictions Scorecard

#40

Post by moralestapia »

>Yes, I did say that something new and big that everyone accepted as the new and big thing in AI would come along no earlier than 2023 [...]

Lol, what a joke. I'd rather get someone to read my hand and tell me what's going to happen.

Post reply on HN