• Varyk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s just the same ignorant technicality that only applies to a couple items on the list.

    You’re agreeing with me on both points.

    1. Yes, sometimes his predictions were not entirely accurate to the specific year.

    Despite the straw man, no one argued that he predicted everything in 2009.

    1. Yes, he had a bunch of accurate predictions.
    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      You claim having both the date and the actual prediction wrong is a technicality. With that criteria, a wrong prediction is impossible.

      Yes, he did have some accurate predictions. From the Forbes article where the author went through them all and highlighted a few, Kurzweil was about 25% correct.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Here’s a more complete and correct list showing that his predictions are correct 86% of the time.

          That’s the list that I referenced earlier where Kurzweil rated himself.

          • Varyk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            That’s cool that he changed his name to Dominic for the article.

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              That author is simply republishing Kurzweil’s self promotion essay titled “How my predictions are faring.”

              • Varyk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                And you don’t believe in the law of accelerating returns, or you just don’t like that the list so clearly lays out how his predictions are correct?

                • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  As I already said, Moore’s law died over 10 years ago. Kurzweil’s accelerating returns predictions were based on it continuing. He didn’t know about the silicon power wall that the industry was about to hit because they didn’t know either. Progress has continued but it stopped being exponential growth.

                  CPU’s used to double their performance every 18 months. Now it’s 5-10% every 18 months. If performance scaling had continued from 1999 to 2019 like it had from 1979 to 1999, his list of predictions would have been mostly right.

                  That the list so clearly lays out how

                  What list? The article you linked simply quoted the 86% as a fact when that “fact” came from Kurzweil’s self evaluation.

                  Terrance Howard thinks Terryology is correct too.

                  • Varyk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Your Moore’s law argument is so weird.

                    Let me check out your gotcha here: kurzweil predicted CPU processing increases via the law of accelerating returns, you’re interpreting that to mean specifically and only Moore’s law, ignoring the part of Moore’s law that worked for 50 years, and claiming that since Moore’s law recently stopped being applicable it never worked at all?

                    That misunderstanding of one prediction is what you’re starting out with?