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.
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.
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.
You can't stop insulting because you have no legitimate response. 3rd party investigators found Kurzweil was only 25% correct. I and many others in this thread have linked long lists of his mistakes.
Your only reply is to quote someone who quoted Kurzweil's self evaluation that he was 86% correct.
I have given proof. You have given nothing but insults
3rd parties also found him 86 percent correct.
Your rebuttals and others have failed.
I encourage you to keep trying, but you might want to use a source, a quote, something that lends credence to your so far repeatedly false and baseless claims.
He made good predictions, this community asked for ten correct predictions, I answered immediately and the only complaint is "well he made a few of those predictions too early so..."
Too early? So he predicted those things correctly?
Get over yourself.
Your rebuttals and others have failed.
You didn't reply to any of the rebuttals except mine. I believe you mistook my politeness for weakness and thought you could bully me into making yourself feel better with veiled insults.
You haven't provided any evidence other than a reporter who didn't investigate but took Kurzweil's self evaluation as a fact.
Further proof you have to get into reading, you'll learn a lot.
I've responded to every single person who replied to me(it's kind of my thing).
None of them have disproved that 1) kurzweil made many valid predictions and 2) the title of that article is ignorant
I provided clear examples that supported ten predictions that nobody has been able to disprove except in technicalities, and that has almost exclusively been applied to.a single prediction out of 145.
I'll happily give you that one as a consolation prize, I'm fine with 144 other correct predictions proving my point.
3rd parties also found him 86 percent correct.
Show it. You only quoted a reporter who used Kurzweil's own self evaluation.
Was that the evaluation the reporter agreed with?
It wasn't an evaluation. The reporter quoted without any investigation.
The reporter said in effect, "Kurzweil said it so it must be true."
That's no different than saying Terryology is true because Terrance Howard said it's true.
It's entirely different in that terryology isn't based on anything and kurzweil based his predictions on tech development like wearable and practical exoskeletal manufacturing that came true.
I can see how the truth and false of it all confuses you, but really.
Read. At all.
Think critically for yourself, don't just take the word of and paraphrase what the other comments said before you.
It's embarrassing to respond to your myopic earnestness.
Still kind of fun though.
Sorry, I tried to make sense of your comment, but I can't figure out what you're referring to, which source your paraphrase is based on or what makes it relevant here.
Kurzweil couldn't admit he made a mistake even though it was based on unforeseen circumstances. Because his entire ego and income was based on predicting the future.
If he said, "Moore's law is dead." People might say, "Well why didn't you foresee that."
I get that part. I'm just not sure why you fon't think he ever said he made a mistake (or why that's relevant to his many correct predictions).
Are you just saying that in your personal opinion you doubt he ever admitted specifically that Moore's law was dead?
I quoted 25% accuracy with a reporter that looked at his predictions. You claimed 86% accuracy with the source being Kurzweil himself.
I didn't say he was wrong about everything.
That's good, that would be ridiculous.
Enjoy the read.
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.