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

    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

    • @Blue_Morpho
      link
      English
      16 months ago

      So your past claim you replied to them was a lie.

      You have dropped from entertaining troll to boring liar.

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

        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.

        • @Blue_Morpho
          link
          English
          16 months ago

          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.

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

            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.

            • @Blue_Morpho
              link
              English
              16 months ago

              You claimed you replied to others. Post the links.