You claim having both the date and the actual prediction wrong is a technicality. With that criteria, a wrong prediction is impossible.
Yes, he did have some accurate predictions. From the Forbes article where the author went through them all and highlighted a few, Kurzweil was about 25% 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.
Getting the abilities and date wrong about a technological prediction isn’t a technicality. It’s simply a wrong prediction.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/03/20/ray-kurzweils-predictions-for-2009-were-mostly-inaccurate/
https://awful.systems/comment/3813653
https://awful.systems/comment/3814271
https://awful.systems/comment/3822346
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.
Despite the straw man, no one argued that he predicted everything in 2009.
You claim having both the date and the actual prediction wrong is a technicality. With that criteria, a wrong prediction is impossible.
Yes, he did have some accurate predictions. From the Forbes article where the author went through them all and highlighted a few, Kurzweil was about 25% correct.
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/
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.
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.