• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    14 months ago

    I don’t think I need to rebut at this point. You’ve been destroyed on almost every single point with one internet search outside of Apple.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months ago

        No, I’m sure you’ll find one eventually.

        Won’t really tip the overwhelming correct predictions kurzweil has, but why don’t you try again?

        • @Blue_Morpho
          link
          English
          14 months ago

          I didn’t make the assertion.

          Fail.

            • @Blue_Morpho
              link
              English
              14 months ago

              You asserted there was self driving road sensors technology installed by 2009.

              It’s not my role to prove your mistakes.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                14 months ago

                That is definitely your self-imposed role.

                You dramatically narrowed the context of my original comment in the hope you could find technical faults within it.

                Your plaintive cries backfired magnificently, but why else would you keep trying so hard to misinterpret my original assertion and establish new guidelines if you didn’t think that refuting kurzweils majority-correct predictions was your role?

                If you aren’t trying to find some way to refute kurzweil predictions, I have no idea what you’re doing.

                Now I’m very curious to find out why you think you’re vainly banging your head against this wall you built.

                • @Blue_Morpho
                  link
                  English
                  14 months ago

                  In 1999 Kurzweil made predictions for 2009. I didn’t make the predictions.

                  Many of the predictions did not come true. Kurzweil’s 86% claim is false. Even you being a fan have agreed that 86% is wrong.

                  Non fans, which is how you need to approach things scientifically, claim 25%. Not being a fan doesn’t mean you aren’t being objective. I have already said Kurzweil’s earlier work was very accurate which is why he became famous.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    Nope, you are straight-up lying.

                    The claim: kurzweil has “tons [this means “a lot”] of corect predictions”.

                    Your parameters:

                    1. Pointedly gnoring at least 100 of his predictions that critics agree carne true

                    2. incorrectly assuming he made all the 2009 predictions and wrote the book in a single day January 1, 1999, the day the book was published and printed

                    3. Arguing insignificant details of a minority of my personal offhand examples illustrating his predictions rather than addressing the actual predictions kurzweil makes

                    Your arguments, assumptions, misdirects and mistakes are not germane to the original correct statement that kurzweil has many correct predictions, and despite your efforts have proved yourself that even by your restrictive conditions, the majority of his predictions are true.

                    The statement "Kurzweil made tons of correct predictions is true.

                    You’ve been swinging and missing for days now, and you aren’t even on the field.

                    Don’t let me stop you, though.