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.
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/
Here's a more complete and correct list showing that his predictions are correct 86% of the time.
That's the list that I referenced earlier where Kurzweil rated himself.
That's cool that he changed his name to Dominic for the article.
That author is simply republishing Kurzweil's self promotion essay titled "How my predictions are faring."
And you don't believe in the law of accelerating returns, or you just don't like that the list so clearly lays out how his predictions are correct?
As I already said, Moore's law died over 10 years ago. Kurzweil's accelerating returns predictions were based on it continuing. He didn't know about the silicon power wall that the industry was about to hit because they didn't know either. Progress has continued but it stopped being exponential growth.
CPU's used to double their performance every 18 months. Now it's 5-10% every 18 months. If performance scaling had continued from 1999 to 2019 like it had from 1979 to 1999, his list of predictions would have been mostly right.
That the list so clearly lays out how
What list? The article you linked simply quoted the 86% as a fact when that "fact" came from Kurzweil's self evaluation.
Terrance Howard thinks Terryology is correct too.
Your Moore's law argument is so weird.
Let me check out your gotcha here: kurzweil predicted CPU processing increases via the law of accelerating returns, you're interpreting that to mean specifically and only Moore's law, ignoring the part of Moore's law that worked for 50 years, and claiming that since Moore's law recently stopped being applicable it never worked at all?
That misunderstanding of one prediction is what you're starting out with?