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

    But the book was written in 96 right? Wait, nope, earlier.

    1999 is after 96 right?

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

      The book the list of predictions is from was written in 1999.

      He has written many books. He became famous because his earlier book was so accurate. Then Moore’s law died which caused all his predictions for technology after 2005 to be very off because the huge compounding effect of Moore’s law stopped.

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

        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

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

          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.

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

            We’ve already established that that decade that you tried to debunk is over 80% correct.

            So you’re off there.

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

              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.

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

                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.

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

                  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.

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

                    Nope, you are straight-up lying.

                    The claim: kurzweil has “tons [this means “a lot”] of corect predictions”.

                    Your parameters:

                    1. Pointedly gnoring at least 100 of his predictions that critics agree carne true

                    2. 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

                    3. 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.