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
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.
The claim: kurzweil has “tons [this means “a lot”] of corect predictions”.
Your parameters:
Pointedly gnoring at least 100 of his predictions that critics agree carne true
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
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.
You can’t say I’ve ignored his 100 correct predictions when you haven’t provided a list of the 100 correct predictions from his 1999 book that he made for the year 2009.
List the 100 correct predictions with exact source: book name, page number.
Naturally, you are making incorrect assumptions again.
My point is that kurzweil has made many correct predictions.
You proved that he’s made over 80% correct predictions, within your parameters.
You constructed the parameters from specifically one book and the wrong year, and haven’t been able to disprove those examples regardless.
I’m fine winning on those examples alone, I’m just pointing out that you’re also ignoring the over 60% of his other correct predictions.
Even if you hadn’t failed in disproving more than a soft 20% of the predictions from this book, you have another 100+ predictions to dispute. And he still has an 80 plus percent record within your confining and shifting parameters.
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.
Nope, you’ve set incorrect parameters and made incorrect assumptions.
That doesn’t mean that kurzweil was wrong, that means that your parameters and assumptions are incorrect.
Kurzweil made the parameters. In 1999 he made specific predictions that he claimed would happen by 2009.
If I make a specific prediction today that something will happen in 10 years and it doesn’t, that’s my mistake, not yours.
Nope, you are straight-up lying.
The claim: kurzweil has “tons [this means “a lot”] of corect predictions”.
Your parameters:
Pointedly gnoring at least 100 of his predictions that critics agree carne true
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
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.
You can’t say I’ve ignored his 100 correct predictions when you haven’t provided a list of the 100 correct predictions from his 1999 book that he made for the year 2009.
List the 100 correct predictions with exact source: book name, page number.
You made the assertion. You defend it.
Naturally, you are making incorrect assumptions again.
My point is that kurzweil has made many correct predictions.
You proved that he’s made over 80% correct predictions, within your parameters.
You constructed the parameters from specifically one book and the wrong year, and haven’t been able to disprove those examples regardless.
I’m fine winning on those examples alone, I’m just pointing out that you’re also ignoring the over 60% of his other correct predictions.
Even if you hadn’t failed in disproving more than a soft 20% of the predictions from this book, you have another 100+ predictions to dispute. And he still has an 80 plus percent record within your confining and shifting parameters.
Swing away.