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.
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?
He made predictions in 1999 about the state of technology in 2009 and 2019 based on the idea that CPUs would continue to double in performance every 18 months for the foreseeable future.
Moore's law has been working for 30 years so it was reasonable to think it would continue for another 30. So he based his predictions on that.
5 years after he made his predictions, Moore's law stopped. That's why his predictions failed.
claiming that since Moore's law recently stopped being applicable it never worked at all?
I very clearly said that Moore's law worked for decades. I very clearly said that Kurzweil made his predictions based on Moore's law continuing. But Moore's law stopped shortly after his predictions. That unforseen event threw off his timeline.
Have you ever planned anything in your life and and unforseen event caused a delay?
Of course. It's crazy that you find that idea shocking.
Ok, you told someone you'd be there and you didn't show up because of unforeseen circumstances.
Now instead of saying, "Sorry I was late, something came up." You said, "What do you mean I was late? I was there on time."
When people said, "You absolutely were not there." You refuse to budge and instead of admitting that you weren't there because of unforeseen circumstances, you insist you were there.
That's Kurzweil in 2011. Instead of saying "Moore's law is dead. Everything needs to be rewritten based on 5% compound growth instead of 100%." He doubled down and insisted he was there.
In fact, since you tried to make what you apparently believe is a legitimate argument based on paraphrased assumptive "sources", I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt address your comment more substantively. Give me a minute.
As you've already shown by repeatedly pretending I wrote things I didn't, I'll need a more direct quoter reference.
Still not convincing, but I am very impressed that you're finally using numbers and trying to make a point that tracks logically.
This one seems incorrect based on the context of your earlier comments, but I bet if you keep trying you'll get there.