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.
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.”
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.
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
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?
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.
The Terryology is a commentary on the scientific method and your support of Kurzweil despite the lack of any external verification.
Kurzweil evaluated himself.
That’s not how it works.
Here is every prediction he made that would exist by 2009:
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]
Fail. Watch wasn’t until a few years later. Still not commonly embedded in clothing and jewelry.
The majority of reading is done on displays rather than paper, though paper documents (including print books) are still common.[21]
Fail. Ebooks just started in 2010 with less than 10% of the market. Office work had been done on computers since the 1980’s. Smartphone like the iPhone capable of allowing reading on a computer were not the majority of the market in 2009.
Most text will be created using speech recognition technology.[20]
Fail. Wasn’t in 2009. Still not in 2024.
Intelligent roads and driverless cars are in use, mostly on highways. Local roads still require full human interaction.
Fail.
People use personal computers the size of rings, pins, credit cards and books.
Fail. Smartphone use was just starting. If we give him partial credit, it’s 1/4 because rings, pins and credit card computers still aren’t common.
Most portable computers do not have moving parts or keyboards.
Fail. iPhones had physical buttons in 2009. Android phones had full keyboards in 2009. Laptops still have keyboards.
Though desktop PCs are still common for data storage, individuals primarily use portable devices for their computer-related tasks.[22][20]
Again fail unless you give him a few years handicap for smartphone revolution.
Personal worn computers provide monitoring of body functions, automated identity and directions for navigation.
Again fail unless you give him a few years handicap for smartphone revolution.
Many devices offer high-speed network access via wireless technology. Which was an accurate prediction.[23][20]
Ok
“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]
Fail
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]
Fail. While it was taking off, it wasn’t typical in 2009.
Cables are disappearing. Computer peripherals use wireless communication.[20][24]
Ok
People can talk to their computer to give commands.
Fail.
Computer displays built into eyeglasses for augmented reality are used.[20]
Fail.
Computers can recognize their owner’s face from a picture or video.
Fail (2009)
Three-dimensional chips are commonly used.
Fail.
Sound-producing speakers are being replaced with very small chip-based devices that can place high-resolution sound anywhere in three-dimensional space.
Fail (2009)
A $1,000 computer can perform a trillion calculations per second.
Fail
Supercomputers have been built that can operate at 20 petaflops (roughly the hardware-equivalent of the human brain according to Kurzweil).
Fail
Here is every prediction for 2009:
Consumer-level computers across the world can network together to form decentralized supercomputers, many of which have the computational capacity of the human brain.
Not a prediction because GIMPS came out in 1996 and Seti@home was 1999. Nor did any have the capacity of a human brain by 2009.
There is increasing interest in massively parallel neural nets, genetic algorithms, and other forms of "chaotic" or complexity theory computing.
That’s not a prediction. There were standard CS classes on those topics in the 1980’s.
Research has been initiated on reverse engineering the brain through both destructive and non-invasive scans.
Fail.
Autonomous nano-engineered machines have been demonstrated and include their own computational controls.
Fail
Digital documents routinely display moving images and sounds.
Ok.
Artificial voices sound fully human.
Fail (2009)
Phones can translate spoken sentences to different languages and read them back aloud.[25][24]
Fail
Telephone communication is mostly wireless.
Not a prediction. Cell phones were already common in 1999. (283 million sold in the US in 1999.)
Cell phones display high-resolution images. Users can engage in audio-video teleconferences.
Ok
High-resolution audio-visual cybersex is common, aided by falling costs of high-speed internet and computer hardware.
Megabit internet still wasn’t common in 2009.
At least 50% of all transactions are conducted over the internet.
Ok
Personal artificial digital assistants are in widespread use. They can understand spoken language, look up answers to questions, set appointments, conduct transactions, tell jokes, and more.
Fail
An increasing share of the population is working from home and while traveling.
Fail. It took COVID for that to be forced.
The typical home has over 100 computers in it, many of which are embedded in appliances.[26]
Fail. Adding every appliance and computer in a 2009 house wasn’t close to 100.
Though not yet ubiquitous, many households have one or more robots that perform some type of housekeeping.
Ok.
People often play music alongside digital musicians. (In “How My Predictions Are Faring” written in 2010, and “Ray Kurzweil Defends His 2009 Predictions” written in 2012[27] Kurzweil cited Guitar Hero and Apple’s Magic GarageBand Jam as two examples.) [24]
Ok, but “often?”
Audio-visual virtual reality has entered the mass market. Users can digitally tour real locations or play in highly immersive fantasy worlds. Tactile (haptic) VR technology is still primitive however
Fail
Militaries rely heavily on armed unmanned airborne devices.
Fail
"Bioengineered treatments for cancer and heart disease have greatly reduced the mortality from these diseases." ("Stem cell transplants, including peripheral blood, bone marrow, and cord blood transplants, can be used to treat cancer.")[28] (Wayback Machine)[24]
Fail. While that tech was being developed, it didn’t “greatly reduce mortality” and still doesn’t.
Telemedicine is common. Devices monitor and relay health-related data of many patients and send that information to doctors remotely. Teleconferencing between doctor and patient is also popular.
Fail. Again that started with COVID.
Computers and medical software are capable enough at image and pattern recognition that they are routinely used to help diagnose diseases by analyzing scans of patients.
Fail
Doctors and medical students often train in virtual reality environments, which include haptic feedback and simulated patients.
Fail. (2009 it was experimental and still experimental today)
“The neo-Luddite movement is growing.”[24]
???
"Accelerating returns from the advance of computer technology have resulted in continued economic expansion." ("U.S. real gross domestic product (real GDP shown in constant 2005 dollars) grew every year except for a small decline in 2009. It grew by 21 percent in constant dollars over the decade." -Kurzweil[27])[24]
The stock market grew in the 1910’s, 1920’s, 1940’s, 50’s, 60’s, 80’s and 90’s. That’s not a prediction when the reason given is wrong. (The stock market grew before silicon scaling existed and computer performance stopped accelerating because of Moore’s law ending.)
7 out of 41 were correct. 20% accuracy. If we give partial credit for smartphones even though his dates were off by a few years it goes up to 25%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Terryology is a commentary on the scientific method and your support of Kurzweil despite the lack of any external verification.
Kurzweil evaluated himself.
That’s not how it works.
Here is every prediction he made that would exist by 2009:
Fail. Watch wasn’t until a few years later. Still not commonly embedded in clothing and jewelry.
Fail. Ebooks just started in 2010 with less than 10% of the market. Office work had been done on computers since the 1980’s. Smartphone like the iPhone capable of allowing reading on a computer were not the majority of the market in 2009.
Fail. Wasn’t in 2009. Still not in 2024.
Fail.
Fail. Smartphone use was just starting. If we give him partial credit, it’s 1/4 because rings, pins and credit card computers still aren’t common.
Fail. iPhones had physical buttons in 2009. Android phones had full keyboards in 2009. Laptops still have keyboards.
Again fail unless you give him a few years handicap for smartphone revolution.
Again fail unless you give him a few years handicap for smartphone revolution.
Ok
Fail
Fail. While it was taking off, it wasn’t typical in 2009.
Ok
Fail.
Fail.
Fail (2009)
Fail.
Fail (2009)
Fail
Fail
Here is every prediction for 2009:
Not a prediction because GIMPS came out in 1996 and Seti@home was 1999. Nor did any have the capacity of a human brain by 2009.
That’s not a prediction. There were standard CS classes on those topics in the 1980’s.
Fail.
Fail
Ok.
Fail (2009)
Fail
Not a prediction. Cell phones were already common in 1999. (283 million sold in the US in 1999.)
Ok
Megabit internet still wasn’t common in 2009.
Ok
Fail
Fail. It took COVID for that to be forced.
Fail. Adding every appliance and computer in a 2009 house wasn’t close to 100.
Ok.
Ok, but “often?”
Fail
Fail
Fail. While that tech was being developed, it didn’t “greatly reduce mortality” and still doesn’t.
Fail. Again that started with COVID.
Fail
Fail. (2009 it was experimental and still experimental today)
???
The stock market grew in the 1910’s, 1920’s, 1940’s, 50’s, 60’s, 80’s and 90’s. That’s not a prediction when the reason given is wrong. (The stock market grew before silicon scaling existed and computer performance stopped accelerating because of Moore’s law ending.)
7 out of 41 were correct. 20% accuracy. If we give partial credit for smartphones even though his dates were off by a few years it goes up to 25%.
Posts you didn’t respond to:
https://awful.systems/comment/3814271
https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/11260906
https://iosdev.space/users/jonhendry/statuses/112701199005570893
https://mastodon.me.uk/users/pikesley/statuses/112701122403652663
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.