Edited by Mind, 01 March 2009 - 07:22 PM.
Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
How accurate are Ray Kurzweil's predictions?
#31
Posted 01 March 2009 - 07:21 PM
#32
Posted 01 March 2009 - 07:38 PM
Thanks for keeping us up to date on how accurate this particular Kurzweil prediction has been.
sponsored ad
#33
Posted 01 March 2009 - 07:43 PM
I forget Kurzweil's prediction about that or 'wearable' computers but I thought it note-worthy. With Iphone sales over 10 million, I bet there are many others like me.
#34
Posted 01 March 2009 - 08:08 PM
Edited by Singularity2045, 01 March 2009 - 08:09 PM.
#35
Posted 01 March 2009 - 08:52 PM
What are some other "old" predictions of his that could be gauged to be accurate or not in the next year or two? It would be interesting if someone came up with a website or chart or something that graphed his prediction accuracy through time. (perhaps on a percentage basis or something)
#36
Posted 01 March 2009 - 09:36 PM
#37
Posted 02 March 2009 - 06:57 PM
So how much calculations per second a $1,000 personal computer's CPU can perform today? (I guess it's one one the two: Intel or AMD ....)
Thanks!
Edited by Singularity2045, 02 March 2009 - 07:00 PM.
#38
Posted 02 March 2009 - 08:21 PM
I don't know about calculations per second but something note-worthy happeneds for me in late 2008 or early 2009. My primary computer is my phone. I sometimes use computers at school for certain applications but 99% of my computer time is on my phone (which is why I am not a folder at the moment).
I forget Kurzweil's prediction about that or 'wearable' computers but I thought it note-worthy. With Iphone sales over 10 million, I bet there are many others like me.
Yeah: Africa.
#39
Posted 02 March 2009 - 08:58 PM
I gave it another thought and I'm not sure why we started to talk about the GPU power, becouse as far as I know usually when people are talking about computer power in calculations per second they are talking about the CPU, and not GPU.....
This is an interesting point you bring up because of the shifting nature of computing. As cnorwood also mentioned in regards to "computing" smart phones. What constituted a PC back when Kurzweil made his prediction and what constitutes a "PC" today has changed and is evolving rapidly. GPUs are an integral part of PCs today. Every PC has one. The high end GPUs crank out a teraflop. So if you combined the CPU and GPU performance (or some sort-of blend) depending on the application you want to handle, then I suppose it could be more or less than a teraflop. Here is a site with CPU benchmarks. I think the ratings are gigaflops.
#40
Posted 02 March 2009 - 09:03 PM
http://www.intel.com...e body_corei7ex
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Intel_Core_3
Does someone know how much calculations per seconds can this CPU make? and how much does it cost?
Thanks.
#41
Posted 02 March 2009 - 09:10 PM
I gave it another thought and I'm not sure why we started to talk about the GPU power, becouse as far as I know usually when people are talking about computer power in calculations per second they are talking about the CPU, and not GPU.....
This is an interesting point you bring up because of the shifting nature of computing. As cnorwood also mentioned in regards to "computing" smart phones. What constituted a PC back when Kurzweil made his prediction and what constitutes a "PC" today has changed and is evolving rapidly. GPUs are an integral part of PCs today. Every PC has one. The high end GPUs crank out a teraflop. So if you combined the CPU and GPU performance (or some sort-of blend) depending on the application you want to handle, then I suppose it could be more or less than a teraflop. Here is a site with CPU benchmarks. I think the ratings are gigaflops.
#42
Posted 02 March 2009 - 09:50 PM
It would be in our best interest to keep track of Kurzweil's hits and misses. He has been a fairly accurate forecaster thus far. Some of his predictions will no doubt be off the mark and it would instructive to understand why. What societal trends were at work? What engineering hurdles were to high to overcome? If we have a general idea of what technologies are on the near-term horizon we should be able to adapt and make sure we get there safely.
http://en.wikipedia....aymond_Kurzweil
For the shorter version: http://en.wikipedia....eil#Predictions
#43
Posted 04 March 2009 - 06:13 AM
#44
Posted 17 May 2009 - 04:46 AM
From "I, Robot" (Newsweek):
But even some of Kurzweil's associates secretly think he's a bit off his rocker, and that his ideas are driven more by fear of death than by solid science. "Ray is going through the single most public midlife crisis that any male has ever gone through," says one scientist who will be teaching at Singularity University and who asked for anonymity because he didn't want to criticize a colleague publicly. . .
The goal of living long enough to experience The Singularity has taken over Kurzweil's life, turning him into a health nut. He's trim and fit, thanks to exercise, a careful diet and loads of supplements. It's also made him wealthier. He's written three books on the subject. His latest, Transcend, released in April, is coauthored with a physician, Terry Grossman, and provides recipesbaked cod, cauliflower with Indian spices, fruit smoothiesand tells you what supplements you should be taking. Grossman and Kurzweil sell their own line of supplements, vitamins and nutrition shakes called Ray & Terry's Longevity Products. Kurzweil has even crafted a contingency plan in case he dies before The Singularity arrives. He'll be frozen in liquid nitrogen and put into storage, waiting for technology to rescue him from the grave. Kurzweil also hopes to bring his father back to life by getting DNA from his father's grave site and using a swarm of nanobots to create a new body that is "indistinguishable from the original person." He'll dig up all of his father's old letters and other materials, and download them along with his own memories into an artificial-intelligence program to create a "virtual person" . . .
He has no doubt. None. He is utterly, completely, 100 percent sure that he is going to live forever. He will be reunited with his beloved father, and they will become immortal and spend eternity together. He is absolutely certain about this. Nothing can talk him out of it. And that, at the end of the day, may be the scariest, or saddest, thing of all.
Of course Kurzweil, assuming he does have cryotransport lined up, will need it according to the actuarial table, just like the rest of us. Well before then he might want to arrange his power of attorney with someone who will cooperate in case his spouse at the time or his children find cryonics all icky and plan to void his arrangements. Given Kurzweil's history of predicting his transcendence of death by the middle of the 21st Century, his relatives could make a plausible case to a judge to set aside his cryonics contract because he displayed mental incompetence when he entered into it, well before his final illness.
#45
Posted 17 May 2009 - 06:09 AM
Kurzweil's predictions may be ultimately off by a decade or two, but so far i haven't seen anyone that has a better clue about what the future will look like than Kurzweil.
What i don't like is Kurzweil's stuff about bringing his father back. I think it does more bad than good to his image and perceived credibility.
#46
Posted 17 May 2009 - 10:47 AM
"He has no doubt. None. He is utterly, completely, 100 percent sure that he is going to live forever. He will be reunited with his beloved father, and they will become immortal and spend eternity together. He is absolutely certain about this. Nothing can talk him out of it. And that, at the end of the day, may be the scariest, or saddest, thing of all."
This is: not only disrespectful (what about people who believe in the Bible or the Coran and who are absolutely sure they will go to heaven, would he make fun about them the same way ? i doubt it because it would be a lot more dangerous then attacking Kurzweil alone).
But that is not the most important thing, the most important thing is that this statement is simply completely wrong, Kurzweil always said that there's no guaranties that he will live forever, that technology might be dangerous and not turned out the way we wanted, even though he's rather optimistic about it.
Look at 5:14
Edited by ben951, 17 May 2009 - 10:49 AM.
#47
Posted 17 May 2009 - 01:43 PM
And also i would like to add that when you attack someone at least make some research, because this statement:
"He has no doubt. None. He is utterly, completely, 100 percent sure that he is going to live forever. He will be reunited with his beloved father, and they will become immortal and spend eternity together. He is absolutely certain about this. Nothing can talk him out of it. And that, at the end of the day, may be the scariest, or saddest, thing of all."
This is: not only disrespectful (what about people who believe in the Bible or the Coran and who are absolutely sure they will go to heaven, would he make fun about them the same way ? i doubt it because it would be a lot more dangerous then attacking Kurzweil alone).
But that is not the most important thing, the most important thing is that this statement is simply completely wrong, Kurzweil always said that there's no guaranties that he will live forever, that technology might be dangerous and not turned out the way we wanted, even though he's rather optimistic about it.
Look at 5:14
I cannot say if Kurzweil will be right or not. Yet he has been right in accurately predicting the timing of such things as the expansion of the internet. He makes no claims of anything special but simply claims that people underestimate the effects of the rate of change in a technological area. We tend to have problems estimating the effects of knowledge doubling. And we have an even harder time understanding how the ever increasing rate of that change further effects the magnitude of the results. He is not saying anything unreasonable he is talking about probabilities. Whether he waxes sentimental in wanting to create a being that resembles his father in many aspects is simply a personal wish. I had a great cat,ou know those animals four legs whiskers, chase mice etc. Well if I could have cloned Spike even now after a number of years I would really like to have a kitten with his potential. Sure I'm being sentimental. I know it. Can we really think or deny anyone the yearning to once again have those we love and have lost return to us? This is a very old theme. My first computer was an Amiga 500. It was considered slightly ahead of it's time No hard drive, no internet. Now my computer is part of a vast worldwide computer system that works on trying to cure disease, I watch tv on it, communicate with people all over the world,enact financial transactions and found out how to successfully treat an inherent affliction right in this forum. If you asked me if I could have envisioned these things I would have to say that I did not.
I am not saying you are wrong for how can I know? But I am sure if change and the rate of change increases proportionately as they did in computer technology we will see unfathomed results.
#48
Posted 17 May 2009 - 03:12 PM
#49
Posted 17 May 2009 - 05:37 PM
#50
Posted 17 May 2009 - 09:18 PM
I don't understand all these supplements he consumes, Isn't that about 250 different kinds or so? There has to be side-effects!
I predict that if Kurzweil ditched his quackery and just took the medications a mainstream physician would prescribe for him (the usual "stack" for middle aged people for cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes, etc.), while adhering to a careful diet and exercise regimen, he would stay just as healthy. He could put the time he'd free up from choking down a bowl full of pills every day to better uses. (The time Kurzweil wastes on quackery must add up to a few days every year, which incurs a considerable opportunity cost.)
In fact, he could do us all a favor by disavowing the immortality talk and using what he can salvage from his reputation to work towards reversible brain vitrification. He doesn't have the expertise for that sort of thing, but he might have enough neural plasticity left to come up with some testable insights into improving the process. At the very least he could engage in fund raising and education to help the best reality-based shot he has at gaining more life.
#51
Posted 17 May 2009 - 10:33 PM
Kurzweil has even crafted a contingency plan in case he dies before The Singularity arrives. He'll be frozen in liquid nitrogen and put into storage, waiting for technology to rescue him from the grave.
I guess I didn't read this as "Ray invented cryonics" but more as "Ray has a plan" (like many of us), for when present technology fails us.
#52
Posted 18 May 2009 - 02:27 AM
Kurzweil has even crafted a contingency plan in case he dies before The Singularity arrives. He'll be frozen in liquid nitrogen and put into storage, waiting for technology to rescue him from the grave.
I guess I didn't read this as "Ray invented cryonics" but more as "Ray has a plan" (like many of us), for when present technology fails us.
The article's author could have written, "Kurzweil has even signed up for a contingency plan, etc." created by a cryonics organization, or words to that effect.
As far as I know, Kurzweil hasn't done anything tangible to help cryonics along. He didn't donate for Bill O'Rights, for example, even though the pre-tax honorarium for one of 70 speeches he reportedly gives every year could have paid for Bill's CI suspension.
#53
Posted 18 May 2009 - 03:38 AM
The mere fact that a famous guy like Kurzweil is signed up does something for cryonics. Bill is a hell of a guy, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what suspending him does to further cryonics.As far as I know, Kurzweil hasn't done anything tangible to help cryonics along. He didn't donate for Bill O'Rights, for example, even though the pre-tax honorarium for one of 70 speeches he reportedly gives every year could have paid for Bill's CI suspension.
#54
Posted 19 May 2009 - 12:19 PM
The mere fact that a famous guy like Kurzweil is signed up does something for cryonics.
I doubt that having kurzweil as a cryo helps cryonics. Sure, it does, but only among a tiny fraction of the populace. Most people will see him as some sort of weirdo, as this newsweek reporter did.
#55
Posted 23 May 2009 - 04:07 PM
I doubt that having kurzweil as a cryo helps cryonics. Sure, it does, but only among a tiny fraction of the populace. Most people will see him as some sort of weirdo, as this newsweek reporter did.
Dean Kamen, another celebrity inventor about Kurzweil's age, makes an interesting contrast. The article about him the current issue of Popular Science indicates that he doesn't think he can do anything about his mortality, but he still wants to use his remaining time to try to cultivate more and more inventors because we have so many unsolved engineering problems in the world.
By conventional standards, in other words, Kamen sounds reasonably sane and socially responsible.
Edited by advancedatheist, 23 May 2009 - 04:10 PM.
#56
Posted 19 June 2009 - 01:45 AM
." He'll dig up all of his father's old letters and other materials, and download them along with his own memories into an artificial-intelligence program to create a "virtual person" . .
Wouldn't this be a different person, behaving remarkably like Ray's father, rather than a resurrected person?
#57
Posted 19 June 2009 - 03:39 AM
." He'll dig up all of his father's old letters and other materials, and download them along with his own memories into an artificial-intelligence program to create a "virtual person" . .
Wouldn't this be a different person, behaving remarkably like Ray's father, rather than a resurrected person?
Kurzweil might as well hire an actor who looks like his father and teach the actor his father's mannerisms and way of speaking.
#58
Posted 20 June 2009 - 03:22 AM
Kurzweil might as well hire an actor who looks like his father and teach the actor his father's mannerisms and way of speaking.
But at least the clone would have no consciousness of being anyone else. And probably wouldn't charge for the service
#59
Posted 20 June 2009 - 06:45 AM
The mere fact that a famous guy like Kurzweil is signed up does something for cryonics.
I doubt that having kurzweil as a cryo helps cryonics. Sure, it does, but only among a tiny fraction of the populace. Most people will see him as some sort of weirdo, as this newsweek reporter did.
Most non-transhumanist people probably know him for his brand of synthesizers though.
Umm anyway... Why didn't Kurzweil simply freeze his father if he wanted to see him again? Not to be disrespectful or anything, but letting his father rot in a coffin or become cremated means that the technology that is required for bringing him back would probably take much longer and the results would be inferior (especially if cloning is involved) than simply freezing him at Alcor and reviving him with nanotechnology, right? I mean, I know it wasn't a money issue because the guy's probably a millionaire.
Sorry if this is a stupid question.
Edited by Condraz23, 20 June 2009 - 06:55 AM.
sponsored ad
#60
Posted 21 June 2009 - 03:39 PM
The mere fact that a famous guy like Kurzweil is signed up does something for cryonics.
I doubt that having kurzweil as a cryo helps cryonics. Sure, it does, but only among a tiny fraction of the populace. Most people will see him as some sort of weirdo, as this newsweek reporter did.
Most non-transhumanist people probably know him for his brand of synthesizers though.
Umm anyway... Why didn't Kurzweil simply freeze his father if he wanted to see him again? Not to be disrespectful or anything, but letting his father rot in a coffin or become cremated means that the technology that is required for bringing him back would probably take much longer and the results would be inferior (especially if cloning is involved) than simply freezing him at Alcor and reviving him with nanotechnology, right? I mean, I know it wasn't a money issue because the guy's probably a millionaire.
Sorry if this is a stupid question.
His father died at 58 from hart attack when kurzweil was 22.
He probably wasn't rich by then and not even a futurist.
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: kurzweil, singularity, breakthroughs, biomedicine, dna sequencing, computing, brain, artificial intelligence, robotics
Round Table Discussion →
Technology →
AI & Singularity →
AI Right Now Is Not Too SmartStarted by adamh , 30 Nov 2023 artificial intelligence |
|
|
||
Science & Health →
Brain Health →
Is it possible to heal from antipsychotics?Started by Hopeforhealing , 01 Sep 2023 antipsychotic injections, pills and 3 more... |
|
|
||
Science & Health →
Brain Health →
Mental Health →
New Isribs - DNL343, ABBV-CLS-7262?Started by IdkAnything , 11 Jun 2023 brain |
|
|
||
Science & Health →
Brain Health →
One explanation of why the perception of time speeds up as you get olderStarted by osris , 03 Jun 2023 brain |
|
|
||
Science & Health →
Brain Health →
How will the brain evolveStarted by kurdishfella , 24 Dec 2022 brain |
|
|
38 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 38 guests, 0 anonymous users