@[email protected] to [email protected] • 3 months agoWe regret to inform you that Ray Kurzweil is back on his bullshitwww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square354fedilinkarrow-up174arrow-down10
arrow-up174arrow-down1external-linkWe regret to inform you that Ray Kurzweil is back on his bullshitwww.theguardian.com@[email protected] to [email protected] • 3 months agomessage-square354fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoRight, 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?
minus-square@Blue_MorpholinkEnglish1•3 months agoIt’s not a prediction if the invention already exists. Fail.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoIncorrect unless you’re equivocating discrete inventions. Paaass
minus-square@Blue_MorpholinkEnglish1•3 months agoA 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.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoI see. So you don’t know the dates or the rules. Got it.
minus-square@Blue_MorpholinkEnglish1•3 months agoIn 1999 Kurzweil said by 2009 most people will be using computers with no mechanical parts and no keyboards. As evidence you pointed to the 1997 Palm pilot that predates his prediction and has mechanical parts. Double fail. It’s not a prediction if it already exists. If it happened after 2009, that falls outside his own given prediction limit. Kurzweil made the rules that you won’t follow.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoAgain, kurzweil made those predictions before 1999, but who’s counting? Not you. He didn’t make your rules for you, you’re just upset that he was correct so you’re trying and failing to rebut him. It’s hilarious that you can’t do it. I actually thought you’d have a much higher success rate than this, but even by your own metrics he’s still above 80% just within that one book.
minus-square@Blue_MorpholinkEnglish1•3 months agoI’m referencing his list of predictions from his 1999 book.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoYou think the book was conceived, written and printed the day it was published. Stunning. You’re behind on points and then I realized your years aren’t even correct.
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.
I see. So you don’t know the dates or the rules.
Got it.
In 1999 Kurzweil said by 2009 most people will be using computers with no mechanical parts and no keyboards.
As evidence you pointed to the 1997 Palm pilot that predates his prediction and has mechanical parts.
Double fail.
It’s not a prediction if it already exists. If it happened after 2009, that falls outside his own given prediction limit.
Kurzweil made the rules that you won’t follow.
Again, kurzweil made those predictions before 1999, but who’s counting? Not you.
He didn’t make your rules for you, you’re just upset that he was correct so you’re trying and failing to rebut him.
It’s hilarious that you can’t do it.
I actually thought you’d have a much higher success rate than this, but even by your own metrics he’s still above 80% just within that one book.
I’m referencing his list of predictions from his 1999 book.
You think the book was conceived, written and printed the day it was published.
Stunning.
You’re behind on points and then I realized your years aren’t even correct.