Naturally, you are making incorrect assumptions again.
My point is that kurzweil has made many correct predictions.
You proved that he’s made over 80% correct predictions, within your parameters.
You constructed the parameters from specifically one book and the wrong year, and haven’t been able to disprove those examples regardless.
I’m fine winning on those examples alone, I’m just pointing out that you’re also ignoring the over 60% of his other correct predictions.
Even if you hadn’t failed in disproving more than a soft 20% of the predictions from this book, you have another 100+ predictions to dispute. And he still has an 80 plus percent record within your confining and shifting parameters.
You proved that he’s made over 80% correct predictions, within your parameters.
You failed in every rebuttal. The palm pilot was not the computer without mechanical parts he predicted in 1999 for 2009. There were no driverless cars on the highway “Once your car’s computer guidance system locks onto the control sensors on one of these highways, you can sit back and relax.” Voice recognition existed before 1999 but his prediction was “Most text created using speech recognition” by 2009. Giant 1980’s AR goggles were not the eyeglass AR he predicted for 2009. “Displays will be built into our eyeglasses and contact lenses and images projected directly onto our retinas.” A webpage saying thank you for your order is not the virtual personality he predicted. “Often, the virtual personality includes an animated visual presence that looks like a human face.”
You confining your rebuttals to inaccurate years and my illustrative examples rather than the content of the predictions makes your assumptions and arguments and incorrect.
Naturally, you are making incorrect assumptions again.
My point is that kurzweil has made many correct predictions.
You proved that he’s made over 80% correct predictions, within your parameters.
You constructed the parameters from specifically one book and the wrong year, and haven’t been able to disprove those examples regardless.
I’m fine winning on those examples alone, I’m just pointing out that you’re also ignoring the over 60% of his other correct predictions.
Even if you hadn’t failed in disproving more than a soft 20% of the predictions from this book, you have another 100+ predictions to dispute. And he still has an 80 plus percent record within your confining and shifting parameters.
Swing away.
You failed in every rebuttal. The palm pilot was not the computer without mechanical parts he predicted in 1999 for 2009. There were no driverless cars on the highway “Once your car’s computer guidance system locks onto the control sensors on one of these highways, you can sit back and relax.” Voice recognition existed before 1999 but his prediction was “Most text created using speech recognition” by 2009. Giant 1980’s AR goggles were not the eyeglass AR he predicted for 2009. “Displays will be built into our eyeglasses and contact lenses and images projected directly onto our retinas.” A webpage saying thank you for your order is not the virtual personality he predicted. “Often, the virtual personality includes an animated visual presence that looks like a human face.”
You confining your rebuttals to inaccurate years and my illustrative examples rather than the content of the predictions makes your assumptions and arguments and incorrect.
IN 1999 Kurzweil made predictions for 2009.
It’s very simple.
That is incorrect.
Simple and incorrect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Spiritual_Machines