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.
TLDR: you are apparently unaware that popular consumer smartphones like the Blackberry go back to 2002 and personal PCs like the Palm Pilot to the 90s.
That said, these attempts are better!
Many points you’ve written are not correct or based on incomplete information, but I appreciate the effort you made to take a clear stand with solid allegations.
It looks like you're ignoring the other hundred correct predictions and just want focus on the ones with one specific year, 2009, to more easily “debunk”.
Goalposts dramatically shifted, but I like the game, so let's do it.
- Personal computers are available in a wide range of sizes and shapes, and are commonly embedded in clothing and jewelry such as wristwatches, rings, earrings and other body ornaments".[20]
You must be talking about the Apple watch, which was not the first wearable personal computer.
People had news headlines, weather, stock tickers, step counting and heart rate monitor watches in the 2000s.
Microsoft spot watch(2000)
Just a check...yea, 2000 was before 2009.
Also, the blackberry came out in 2002.
So that's a pass...cool.
- The majority of reading is done on displays rather than paper, though paper documents (including print books) are still common.[21]
I see here you are pretending that only print books and e-book readers exist, rather than acknowledging the act of reading on a computer screen(forums, reviews, online news).
Or maybe you forgot about computers.
Paaass.
- Intelligent roads and driverless cars are in use, mostly on highways. Local roads still require full human interaction.
Intelligent roads, of course, sensors, traffic/accident/emergency warnings, but driverless cars, uh-uh. That’s a partial fail! Local roads still did require full human interaction. I’ll take a half point. But you can have it if you don’t like it. You’ll see I don’t need it later on.
- > People use personal computers the size of rings, pins, credit cards and books.
Obviously a pass, we had palm pilots in 1996, tens of millions of them and other derivations in just a few years, before even 2000. There were tons of tiny PCs in many shapes and sizes. Pocket PCs were popular and varied.
5.> Most portable computers do not have moving parts or keyboards.
Most portable computers did not have keyboards. Laptops okay, but truly portable PCS like palm pilots generally used a handwriting input system or stylus or the like.
Are you pretty young? This stuff was pretty popular.
Pass
6.> Though desktop PCs are still common for data storage, individuals primarily use portable devices for their computer-related tasks.[22][20]
Maybe I’m missing your point here. I can’t statistically prove this one any more than you have, but people already used their phones constantly before 2010, much more than people used PCs.
I think you’re conflating iphones with smartphones again.
Pass
7. > Personal worn computers provide monitoring of body functions, automated identity and directions for navigation.
As mentioned earlier, there were various devices that were step counters and monitored functions like heart rate. Not ubiquitous, but they were developed well before your specific cutoff date.
The Timex Datalink came out in 1994 and monitored steps, calories, as well as calendars, phone directory, that kind of stuff
Various straps measured heart rate like the Nike Sportband from 2006.
So pass
Okay! I think we’ve already matched your total number of correct predictions real quick simply by looking outside of Apple’s corporate history.
We’ve already corrected your errors or ignorance of certain earlier consumer products. Idk, should we do more?
Let’s double it, it’s obvious you just didn’t know about consumer tech products outside of the Apple bubble
- > Personal worn computers provide monitoring of body functions, automated identity and directions for navigation.
GPS was very popular even before Apple, I’m not going to link to Garmin or Magellan or whatever. If you’re curious, you can read any history of modern consumer GPS devices, they start back in the early 90s.
Pass.
9.> Many devices offer high-speed network access via wireless technology. Which was an accurate prediction.[23][20]
You passed this one, which, yea, that would be tricky even only knowing Apple history to refute.
10. > "Most routine business transactions (purchases, travel, reservations) take place between a human and a virtual personality. Often, the virtual presentation includes an animated visual presence that looks like a human face."[24]
Hey a fail! Good for you. 85% correct(one partial) and one fail!
Well, wait. Actually, most routine business transactions did have virtual personalities(excited thank yous for purchases, suggestions to do this or that, but still! There were very few faces! Okay, well, that’s a quick bump to 90% correct predictions so far from the first ten points.
11. > Digital products such as books, songs, games, movies and software are typically acquired as files via a wireless network and have no physical object associated with them.[23]
Do you mean digital products derived from physical media or actual digital products? Because digital products not derived from physical products were common by 2009. Hm.
I’ll give you a half point, why not?
12. > Cables are disappearing. Computer peripherals use wireless communication.[20][24]
Doy.
Pass
13. > People can talk to their computer to give commands.
This was possible I don’t even know how long ago via accessibility on every copy of Windows. I went through a phase talking to my computer via the grid square thing. It was cool.
And very real.
Pass
- > Computer displays built into eyeglasses for augmented reality are used.[20]
Okay, you really didn’t even look any of these up, AR glasses are old. They still weren’t cool, but they have been around a long time. Heck, that’s how they trained the astronauts in the 2000s.
Pass
You incorrectly claimed that “7 out of 41 were correct.”
Instead, we’ve found 11 correct and 3 portially correct in the first 14 items on your list.
So that’s 90% correct predictions.
You weren’t even close.
It seems like you are very unaware of fairly common technology before 2009.
But just because you didn’t know about it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.
Shoot, you should look up the Blackberry. It was a revolutionary smartphone from 2002. It was basically apple before apple, you’d like it.
Re: Personal worn jewelry like watches, rings, pins and earrings will monitor body functions and have GPS
Yes gps devices existed before 1999. I had a CF GPS for my Nino. If you use those devices as what his intention was when he wrote about wearable tech, it's not a prediction so it is a fail.
Mmhmmmm, okay, well I guess you don't know about Garmin.
The Garmin foreRunner, a smart watch, developed in 2003 integrated user physical performance, fitness and GPS.
Paaass
But the book was written in 96 right? Wait, nope, earlier.
1999 is after 96 right?
The book the list of predictions is from was written in 1999.
He has written many books. He became famous because his earlier book was so accurate. Then Moore's law died which caused all his predictions for technology after 2005 to be very off because the huge compounding effect of Moore's law stopped.
Don't know how you're all so confused about this, but getting correct for a decade she's then technology changing didn't mean his prediction was incorrect.
It means he was correct, and then technology changed again.
Also, and this is going to blow your mind, Moore's law?
Not a prediction by kurzweil.
Fairly irrelevant except as a touchstone example given to tech-illiterates to understand how fast computing power increases
Most of his predictions he made in 1999 for 2009 were wrong. We have been through the list. You gave up rebuttals.
He didn't foresee the change in speed technology improvements which is why his predictions failed.
Why would you think Moore's law was Kurzweil's idea? It's called MOORE'S law.
He based his predictions on Moore. He referenced Moore's law many times and extrapolated.
We've already established that that decade that you tried to debunk is over 80% correct.
So you're off there.
We've gone through the list and you've been wrong on every point. You showed a picture of 1989 style goggles as proof of a prediction in 1999 that there would be eyeglass ar by 2009.
You used a 1997 palm pilot with mechanical buttons as evidence for a 1999 prediction that by 2009 people would be using computers with no mechanical input.
You were unaware that Dragon Dictate with full voice recognition and control was sold in 1997. This was 2 years before Kurzweil predicted voice input would be available by 2009.
You didn't provide any example of highway self driving by 2009 or smart road sensors to enable that self driving. There were already basic road sensors in the early 90's and nothing new by 2009.
You would self evaluate yourself that 1x1 = 1 is correct just like Terrance Howard.
Re: intelligent virtual assistant
"Thank you for your order" on a web order is an intelligent assistant? Lol. But that predates 1999 so it is still a fail.
Look what you wrote.
"Most routine business transactions, purchases travel reservations, take place between a human and a virtual personality."
That is a pass.
Maybe you should try for a new list?
Because all of these ones are a pass from your requirements of 99 to 2009.
You said your definition of a virtual personality is a webpage where you type in your order and the webpage replies "thank you for your order."
That existed before 1999.
Fail.
Of course you know that's not what he meant but you are grasping at straws because of your failures.
Re: people can talk to their computer to give commands
His claim was that it would be typical, not that it was possible. If you use your definition, it's a fail because Dragon Dictate was out in 1997. My Philips Nino from 1998 had voice recognition.
Claiming already existing technology will be invented in the future isn't a prediction. Voice input still isn't the dominant method of data input today.
So I was going off of your claim, you wrote " people can talk to their computer to give commands".
The modern version where you can do that was developed in the 2000s, so ..
Paaasss
Dragon Dictate and voice commands in the Philips Nino were from 1997 and 1998 respectively.
Fail.
Not to control everything on the computer like in the 2k.
Paass
Dragon Dictate 1997 allowed voice dictation and complete control with voice commands.
I get it.
You hate accurate dates.
It's not a prediction if it already exists.
AN ELECTRIC CAR WILL BE SOLD IN THE YEAR 2035!!!
Here's an example of a prediction, since you're having so much trouble.
"Multiple electric cars with airless tires will be sold commercially by 2035".
See that?
It's a scenario that doesn't exist yet that we are pre-dic-ting (imagining the future!) will happen later on.
TLDR: you are apparently unaware that popular consumer smartphones like the Blackberry go back to 2002 and personal PCs like the Palm Pilot to the 90s.
Do you have a reading or memory problem? I referenced Palm with cell data as the reason it's not a prediction in my first replies. Predicting a product that's already for sale isn't a prediction.
It's also the specific predictions like of no mechanical interface that Kurzweil had for those devices which was wrong until the iPhone became popular and dropped the physical buttons. Which I carefully wrote but you didn't read.
Finally, as I already said in my conclusion, even if you give Kurzweil a handicap of of 5 yrars, that only raises his percentage to 25%,.
Read what I wrote.
Hey, of your want those happy points, take em.
So we're down to, what? 85% correct on the first chubby baker's dozen (that's 14. Cause he's chubby)?
I'm fine with 85% correct predictions, that seems correct and is way more concrete teeth the point I was making before, that he was right about "a lot" of stuff.
85 percent from your own list is way more substantive.
Re: Watch. You can't pick out 1 from a list of wrong and make that a win. Especially because he listed medical monitoring which the Early watches didn't do. Your attempt at listing an early smartwatch is also a fail because the Timex Datalink came out in 1994. Predicting a product that was for sale 5 years ago isn't a prediction.
MY GRAND PREDICTION: IN 2035 AN ELECTRIC CAR WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR SALE.
You're back to struggling for a single technicality out of a list of over a dozen correct predictions that you offered up?
Nice.
Re: driverless cars.
You can't take a half point. There were no driverless cars on the highways in 2009.
If something existed before 1999 (road sensors) it isn't a prediction so it's a fail. If it didn't exist by 2009 it is a fail.
I thought your whole thing was dividing these into half points based on the components of the statement.
You want it you got it, though.
Whatever gets you giggly.
But there's no half. Road sensors existed before 1999 so that's not a prediction and therefore a fail. Self driving on the highway didn't exist in 2009 and is therefore a fail. Both fails, 0 points.
You said the statement was incorrect, but with sheet road signs, that prediction is obviously correct.
Sorry, can't help you squeak out of this one.
What specific smart road device that was new between 1999 and 2009 are you referring to?
Because there were all sorts of smart road sensors in use the 1990's. In 1994 Palo Alto, the intersections had sensors so lights instantly turned green for you if you were the only person at the intersection. The on ramps to highways had smart sensors controlling lights to control merging traffic.
Whichever one you find comforting.
Re: display built into eye glasses.
AR in any form isn't the specific prediction of AR built into eye glasses. AR in eye glasses wasn't available in 2009 to consumers. AR was invented in 1968 so it isn't a prediction.
The prediction is the claim that AR was in eyeglasses, not that it would exist. That's why it is a fail.
You didn't say AR built into eyeglasses for consumers, you left out the consumers part.
But you're struggling, I get it.
Let's not take NASA's word for it, right?
What do they know about revolutionary tech, anyway?
Show me NASA AR built into eye glasses 1999-2009. Because the only thing I can find is from 2015.
If it existed before 1999 it's not a prediction. If I was invented after 2009 it's a fail.
Haha, sure, sure. Okay...
NASA had a vr lab since 92, let's see if we can find you ar glasses in your special time frame..
Looks like there's some software called Doug that used cameras and sensors in goggles for astronaut training in 2001.
Again if it already existed, THAT ISN'T A PREDICTION.
Pointing out all the things that existed before Kurzweil predicted they would be invented isn't helping your argument.
Right, these are the things in your special decade conforming to your list.
You're getting really burned up huh.
This list kind of backfired against you real hard huh?
It's not a prediction if the invention already exists.
Fail.
Incorrect unless you're equivocating discrete inventions.
Paaass
A prediction by definition is something that will happen in the future.
AR existed since 1968. NASA had AR goggles in 1989.
Kurzweil's predictions were made in 1999 for things that will exist by 2009.
He created the rules of his predictions, not me.
Oh, and then the hmd 1, which looks more like an AR headset you recognize was in 2008. Rapidly changed into modern looking visor by 2012.
Apparently they can see out and info is there also.
So there you go.
Double whammy
Those aren't eyeglasses. Those are AR goggle rigs that existed since 1968.
Sure. You might like these then:
2004: An outdoor helmet-mounted AR system was demonstrated by Trimble Navigation and the Human Interface Technology Laboratory (HIT lab).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL3C-OVQKWU
Boy, this seems difficult for you.
Goggles aren't eyeglasses. Those are goggles. NASA had the VIEW ar system in 1989.
https://youtu.be/TY8CyUQOncc?si=zIeWUGSwlavoQLA_
It's not a prediction if it existed 10 years earlier.
These are eyeglasses
https://www.meta.com/smart-glasses/wayfarer-shiny-black-clear
Eyeglasses for the reading impaired:
2004: An outdoor helmet-mounted AR system was demonstrated by Trimble Navigation and the Human Interface Technology Laboratory (HIT lab).
Re: digital distribution
Your claim that digital distribution was the majority by 2009 like Kurzweil claimed is false.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/190225/digital-and-physical-game-sales-in-the-us-since-2009/
That wasnot my cousin, but if it were I'm sure those stickers would be relevant.
They seem very written.
Re: palm pilot
The important part of the prediction was "no moving parts". He didn't predict the Palm pilot, it came out in 1997.
Re: reading on computers
As I said, if that's the criteria then that predates 1999. The Internet exploded in 1995. People were reading on their computers before 1999.
Reading didn't change until everyone had a smartphone which happened after 2009. Only 17% had a smartphone in 2009.
Reading didn't change until everyone had a smart watch?
You're going to have to give some source for that.
And blogs and forums didn't explode, domains exploded.
Blogs and forms and online reading exploded in the 2000s.
You're a decade off again.
But you know who is correct on that prediction?
Kurzweil
62% in 1999. 77% 2010.
So only a small change in PC use which means only a small change in the ability to read on a computer.
Smartphone adoption rate went from 0 in 2007 to 95% today. So everyone now has a computer.
Oh. So, "the majority of reading" was arguably digital.
Cool.
Paass
Majority was already in 1999.
Fail.
How are you judging that?
62% is a majority.
Yes, you're agreeing with me.
So you agree that the majority of people read on computers before 1999. Therefore Kurzweil's 1999 prediction wasn't what you claim it to mean.
Either he foresaw the future of smartphones, tablets and ebooks but was off by 5 years or he was an idiot who didn't know what was happening in the 1990's. In your ignorance you have argued that Kurzweil is an idiot.
Your reply will be "incorrect" because you have no ability to write a logical response.