Sure, I’m not even going to verify this one since it’s so low stakes.
This is ill-defined.
Again ill-defined, and I need dates on this, we’ve been sequencing DNA for like 50yrs at this point.
Lol, Neuralink kills monkeys, there’s zero indication of its “inevitability”.
Lol^2, none of that shit works mate. Name one person whose life was extended with cryonics.
AI is ill-defined, plus dates please.
And how well did that go?
First of all, that’s called Moore’s Law after the actual guy who made this prediction, you can’t credit someone else than Moore for Moore’s Law, wtf. Second, this hasn’t held for at least a decade now; we’ve been focusing on completely different things than raw CPU speed to actually increase compute.
“Answer questions” there is a load-bearing term. Did he mean search engines? Is this deriberately vague?
I’m sorry? First, a 3D printed prosthetic is not an exoskeleton, what kind of a logic leap is that. Second, citation needed on “3D printable prosthetic limbs” actually being in use right now on any scale.
ah you see cryonics does increase life expenctancy, i.e. E(life length). As long as P(cryobubonics works) > 0, which, according to Yudkowskian Probability Theory, is true for any probability, then E(life length) = infinity, since cryonica will let us live forever /big fat fucking S
“Computers will be really good at chess” was already a trope in 1960s science fiction. HAL 9000 is canonically so good that he was instructed to throw the game half the time so that his human opponents don’t get bored. The Enterprise computer is so good that Spock being able to beat it — Spock — is a major plot point.
It’s nice that it makes you feel better to pretend that your confusion and is a direct rebuttal, but they aren’t.
None of your rebuttals carry any kind of weight, most of them are just rhetorical questions or examples of ignorance that you aren’t willing to remedy yourself by a simple search.
If you have actual rebuttals, bring them up.
So far, that’s 10 out of 10 for Kurzweil.
A “load-bearing term”, "none of that shit works, “lol”.
ah you see cryonics does increase life expenctancy, i.e. E(life length). As long as P(cryobubonics works) > 0, which, according to Yudkowskian Probability Theory, is true for any probability, then E(life length) = infinity, since cryonica will let us live forever /big fat fucking S
what a throwback
🭋🭛🮣🮧🮢 🭋🭛 🭲🭲🭲 🭋🭛 🮥🮩🮤 🭋🭛 🭲🭲🭲 🭋🭛 🮡🮦🮠those codepoints very didn’t survive into the local view, haha. will have to see if it renders elsewhere
“Computers will be really good at chess” was already a trope in 1960s science fiction. HAL 9000 is canonically so good that he was instructed to throw the game half the time so that his human opponents don’t get bored. The Enterprise computer is so good that Spock being able to beat it — Spock — is a major plot point.
You’re failing to successfully disprove any of these points because you aren’t providing any evidence or context.
Plus you admitted he was definitely right about computers conquering human chess champions.
Maybe you should try and focus on point by point quite specifically?
There must be one that you can rebut better than “lol”.
Go for it!
Well, at least you apologize.
It’s nice that it makes you feel better to pretend that your confusion and is a direct rebuttal, but they aren’t.
None of your rebuttals carry any kind of weight, most of them are just rhetorical questions or examples of ignorance that you aren’t willing to remedy yourself by a simple search.
If you have actual rebuttals, bring them up.
So far, that’s 10 out of 10 for Kurzweil.
A “load-bearing term”, "none of that shit works, “lol”.
Keep flailing.