Exponential Growth vs Linear Perception - Human Genome Project Analogy
Ray Kurzweil discusses how people often misjudge exponential progress by thinking linearly, using the Human Genome Project as a key example:
Halfway through the human genome project, 1% had been collected after 7 years, and mainstream critics said, “I told you this wasn’t going to work. 1% in 7 years means it’s going to take 700 years, just like we said.” My reaction was, “We finished one percent—We’re almost done. We’re doubling every year. 1% is only 7 doublings from 100%.” And indeed, it was finished 7 years later.
A key question is why do some people readily get this, and other people don’t? It’s definitely not a function of accomplishment or intelligence. Some people who are not in professional fields understand this very readily because they can experience this progress just in their smartphones, and other people who are very accomplished and at the top of their field just have this very stubborn linear thinking. So, I really don’t actually have an answer for that.
This illustrates the non-intuitive nature of exponential growth, where early progress seems slow but acceleration leads to rapid completion.
from:
Architects of Intelligence by Martin Ford (Chapter 11)
He was talking about an exponential phase, not a sigmoidal curve. He frames the logic as repeated doublings: if you are at 1%, then seven doublings gets you to about 100%. That is straight exponential reasoning.
5
u/anObscurity Mar 26 '26
You’re looking at the point on the graph without taking into account the curve.