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.
Kurzweil made the parameters. In 1999 he made specific predictions that he claimed would happen by 2009.
If I make a specific prediction today that something will happen in 10 years and it doesn't, that's my mistake, not yours.
Nope, you are straight-up lying.
The claim: kurzweil has "tons [this means "a lot"] of corect predictions".
Your parameters:
-
Pointedly gnoring at least 100 of his predictions that critics agree carne true
-
incorrectly assuming he made all the 2009 predictions and wrote the book in a single day January 1, 1999, the day the book was published and printed
-
Arguing insignificant details of a minority of my personal offhand examples illustrating his predictions rather than addressing the actual predictions kurzweil makes
Your arguments, assumptions, misdirects and mistakes are not germane to the original correct statement that kurzweil has many correct predictions, and despite your efforts have proved yourself that even by your restrictive conditions, the majority of his predictions are true.
The statement "Kurzweil made tons of correct predictions is true.
You've been swinging and missing for days now, and you aren't even on the field.
Don't let me stop you, though.
You can't say I've ignored his 100 correct predictions when you haven't provided a list of the 100 correct predictions from his 1999 book that he made for the year 2009.
List the 100 correct predictions with exact source: book name, page number.
You made the assertion. You defend it.
Naturally, you are making incorrect assumptions again.
My point is that kurzweil has made many correct predictions.
You proved that he's made over 80% correct predictions, within your parameters.
You constructed the parameters from specifically one book and the wrong year, and haven't been able to disprove those examples regardless.
I'm fine winning on those examples alone, I'm just pointing out that you're also ignoring the over 60% of his other correct predictions.
Even if you hadn't failed in disproving more than a soft 20% of the predictions from this book, you have another 100+ predictions to dispute. And he still has an 80 plus percent record within your confining and shifting parameters.
Swing away.
You proved that he's made over 80% correct predictions, within your parameters.
You failed in every rebuttal. The palm pilot was not the computer without mechanical parts he predicted in 1999 for 2009. There were no driverless cars on the highway "Once your car’s computer guidance system locks onto the control sensors on one of these highways, you can sit back and relax." Voice recognition existed before 1999 but his prediction was "Most text created using speech recognition" by 2009. Giant 1980's AR goggles were not the eyeglass AR he predicted for 2009. "Displays will be built into our eyeglasses and contact lenses and images projected directly onto our retinas." A webpage saying thank you for your order is not the virtual personality he predicted. "Often, the virtual personality includes an animated visual presence that looks like a human face."
You confining your rebuttals to inaccurate years and my illustrative examples rather than the content of the predictions makes your assumptions and arguments and incorrect.
IN 1999 Kurzweil made predictions for 2009.
It's very simple.
That is incorrect.
Simple and incorrect.
-