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.
Congratulations on finding technical ways around a couple items on this hahah.
Unfortunately, the other ones are obviously correct and there are many more.
"Anyone can say that a particular technology will exist in the distant future."
Except Kurtzweil actually did make specific predictions and was proven correct over and over again.
Remember you asked for examples and then you got a whole bunch of examples where that was correct and then really struggled with a couple inapplicable technicalities to throw a couple of them since the other ones are indisputable?
Good times.
Except Kurtzweil actually did make specific predictions and was proven correct over and over again.
You missed the part where the specific predictions you listed were wrong. Because the specific part is the date.
Anyone can say "human lifespan will get longer in the future" But Kurzweil said average human lifespan will be over 100 by 2009. VR will be visually indistinguishable from reality in 2009. Self driving cars in 2009. Most diseases will be eliminated by the 2020s, thanks to nanobots. Translating telephones allow two people across the globe to speak to each other even if they do not speak the same language in 2009.
He has been wrong about most everything because his dates were wrong. His dates were wrong because Moore's law ended shortly after he made his predictions.
Vague predictions about the future don't prove anything but imagination.
He's been correct in most of his predictions, and wrong about the dates on some of his predictions.
Yes.
"Vague predictions about the future don't prove anything but imagination"
Imagination, you mean the creative process by which inventors and developers create the literal future?
Dismissing imagination in the role of creation is as ineffective an argument as dismissing the air in your lungs.
No he hasn't been correct on his predictions.
He self judged himself that he was mostly correct and then published that as if was a fact.
You can't claim VR indistinguishable from reality in 2009 and then call it a correct prediction because we got Meta 3 goggles with Halflife 2 level graphics in 2023.
You can't claim Petaflop CPUs in 2009 and then say, well if you add up every computer that Google owns, it's like a Petaflop CPU (yes, Kurzweil made that excuse).
That's like if I predict a colony on Mars by 2030 and then call it correct when a manned landing finally happens Mars in 2055 (but no colony). What's 50 years and 1 man instead of a colony? I said a man would be on Mars so I'm right. Ignore that I was 25 years wrong.
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.