Everyone else accepted the prior proof, your the only one still pretending not to understand and making up stories to avoid the report that you were incorrect.
Nope, my original comment, the original ten predictions requested, and the subsequent requested proofs within your narrowed, out of context parameters were correct.
You’re a sore loser.
You making things up isn’t going to get any more convincing with time or repetition.
I gave a list from the Kurzweil’s 1999 book. I provided a sourced 3rd party review. I then listed them out where you failed to defend your position.
No self driving cars. No virtual personalities. No AR built into eyeglasses and contact lenses. No voice as the primary input for computers. No computers without any mechanical parts.
Yes, you changed the goalposts, ignored most of his predictions, used the wrong years, and although you were ignorant if the relevant technology, claimed the tech never existed and argued against my examples rather than the predictions by kurzweil.
Despite that, you were unable to refute his predictions.
You made the claim you already replied to everyone. You provide the proof.
Everyone else accepted the prior proof, your the only one still pretending not to understand and making up stories to avoid the report that you were incorrect.
Kurzweil was accurate in most of his predictions.
Thanks for helping prove that
So your past claim you replied to them was a lie.
You have dropped from entertaining troll to boring liar.
Nope, my original comment, the original ten predictions requested, and the subsequent requested proofs within your narrowed, out of context parameters were correct.
You’re a sore loser.
You making things up isn’t going to get any more convincing with time or repetition.
I didn’t address the ten.
I gave a list from the Kurzweil’s 1999 book. I provided a sourced 3rd party review. I then listed them out where you failed to defend your position.
No self driving cars. No virtual personalities. No AR built into eyeglasses and contact lenses. No voice as the primary input for computers. No computers without any mechanical parts.
Yes, you changed the goalposts, ignored most of his predictions, used the wrong years, and although you were ignorant if the relevant technology, claimed the tech never existed and argued against my examples rather than the predictions by kurzweil.
Despite that, you were unable to refute his predictions.
It’s pretty great.
You claimed you replied to others. Post the links.