We regret to inform you that Ray Kurzweil is back on his bullshit
We regret to inform you that Ray Kurzweil is back on his bullshit
The Google futurist talks nanobots and avatars, deepfakes and elections – and why he is so optimistic about a future where we merge with computers
You're viewing part of a thread.
If those technicalities on two of his predictions make you feel less insecure about how many of his predictions were correct, I'm all for self-care.
Doesn't change the fact that hus predictions were correct.
He made a lot of correct predictions, that's all there is to it.
I'm all for self-care.
Typical. I show your arguments to be a sham so your response is insults.
If he claimed to be a scifi author, his "predictions" would be fine. That's where imagination comes in. But he's not claiming to be a fiction writer.
He made specific predictions of what will happen by a certain date. He wasn't off by a couple of years. He was completely wrong. You can't pick out the part you like out, ignore the mistake, and claim a statement is true.
I don't see what you're so confused about here, and you did not disprove his predictions.
He's not a science fiction author, he writes nonfiction.
He saw the proliferation of technology and predicted the ubiquity of many of those technologies.
He was right about those.
Why do you feel so threatened by accurate predictions?
Someone was going to naysay all the people that said the internet was a fad and see the potential of information technology.
Kurzweil said it loudly first.
Why do you think I am threatened by predictions he got right? Are you ok?
Pointing out mistakes isn't a threat. It's the scientific method
.
I'm good.
You aren't pointing out mistakes, you're fumbling technicalities on a limited number of points because you can't find anything substantive wrong with his predictions.
I'm a fan
Getting the abilities and date wrong about a technological prediction isn't a technicality. It's simply a wrong prediction.
https://awful.systems/comment/3813653
That's just the same ignorant technicality that only applies to a couple items on the list.
You're agreeing with me on both points.
- Yes, sometimes his predictions were not entirely accurate to the specific year.
Despite the straw man, no one argued that he predicted everything in 2009.
- Yes, he had a bunch of accurate predictions.
You claim having both the date and the actual prediction wrong is a technicality. With that criteria, a wrong prediction is impossible.
Yes, he did have some accurate predictions. From the Forbes article where the author went through them all and highlighted a few, Kurzweil was about 25% correct.
No, I don't, but I understand how pretending I said something I didn't supports your false rebuttals.
Oh, a curated list with the intent to slander?
Here's a more complete and correct list showing that his predictions are correct 86% of the time.
https://bigthink.com/articles/why-ray-kurzweils-predictions-are-right-86-of-the-time/