11 ms·

Ray Kurzweil 2019 Predictions

60 points by melling 8y ago

xhrpost 8y ago
Interesting how several of the 2009 predictions were very wrong at the time but now are coming true in 2019. Perhaps we can look at the 2019 predictions to see what 2029 might look like.
mrfusion 8y ago
Oh wow these are way off. I wonder what went wrong?
- ardy42 8y ago
  > Oh wow these are way off. I wonder what went wrong? Ray Kurzweil went wrong, they're his predictions.
- VMG 8y ago
  His predictions went wrong
  - mrfusion 8y ago
    Maybe he didn’t take into account how much things depend on software. He just assumed faster hardware will make things happen. And even on that front, Moore’s law died somewhere in the 2010s. That might have thrown these off.
    - jaked89 8y ago
      Moore's law didn't die, it's been para(lle)lized.
  - neuronic 8y ago
    At least he sold books? Good for him.
- base698 8y ago
  It's impossible to predict the location of a bouncy ball when thrown in a small home with a cat present. Now extrapolate that to all of human activity twenty years out. Because we are confronted by speculation at every turn, in print, on video, on the net, in conversation, we may eventually conclude that it must have value. But it doesn’t. Because no matter how many people are speculating, no matter how familiar their faces, how good their makeup and how well they are lit, no matter how many weeks they appear before us in person or in columns, it remains true that none of them knows what the future holds. http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/ http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/
- caymanjim 8y ago
  This implies that there was ever a conceivable way any of the predictions would be right.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  A few things went wrong. The first is the evolution of microprocessors under Moore's Law. Since about 2005, we've come to realize that we can't afford to cool chips anymore if we crank up the frequency. What that means is that the advancements in building silicon is much less efficient at being turned into sustained computation rates. So building the exponential growth curves predicted required (and still requires) revolutionary thinking about how to build computers, rather than just easy gains each generation. The second thing that went wrong was what Derek Lowe refers to as the "Andy Grove Fallacy." This fallacy is that every hard problem (particularly in biological systems) can be solved by just shoveling computational power at it. In the modern day, we still can't model the neurological system of a nematode that has just 302 neural cells, let alone understanding how the entire organism works. Multiply that to the scale [1] of a human being, and we are truly ignorant of how things work except in the most general sweeping statements possible. The final thing is, well, people tend to underestimate the difficulty of problems. Things such as bipedal motion or turning a doorknob are problems that seem utterly trivial to us human beings (because we learn them before we can remember the process of learning!) but are absolutely maddening to robots. [1] Recall that complexity tends to grow exponentially with scale, not linearly--each pairwise, three-way, four-way, etc. interaction contributes to complexity.
- gooseus 8y ago
  I didn't read his book, but I would guess it was his failure to properly account for the diminishing returns of increased complexity in all the systems that these technological advances (increasingly) depend on. This includes the economic, political, ecological, and social systems, as well as the actual technological systems.
scandox 8y ago
> The basic needs of the underclass are met I mean if you're going to fantasize why not bring this forward and give imaginary relief to millions? I would have predicted this easily for 2016...or even maybe 2012. Obviously any earlier would have been ridiculous.
- jimktrains2 8y ago
  Poverty has been falling consitently and we, as a species, is more than able to meet everyone's needs, we simply choose not to because we're greedy and short-sighted.
  - scandox 8y ago
    I think to talk about this as a moment in time when the job is done is the mistake. It needs to be considered both as something achieved and demonstrably sustained/sustainable for a meaningful length of time into the future. That's why I just find it funny to see that statement. For 2019. Generalizing to some global "underclass" that anyway doesn't exist.
    - jimktrains2 8y ago
      > It needs to be considered both as something achieved and demonstrably sustained/sustainable for a meaningful length of time into the future. 100% agree. I just wanted to highlight that one of the largest obstacles to ensuring that everyone's basic needs are met (and that our grandchildren will still have a planet they can easily live on) is our politics and short-nearsightedness, not necessarily our technology.
  - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
    Please don't blame "us" / "the species" for the decisions and objectives of the 0.1%. That's putting the blame on everyone, while most people don't have any influence on the worldwide direction things are going in.
    - jimktrains2 8y ago
mrfusion 8y ago
Is a high end computer anywhere near 20 quadrillion calculations per second? Edit: 20 quintillion would be 20 million teraflops. Sound right?
- 1024core 8y ago
  Not that I'm much into "predictions", but for $4000 you can get a lot of GPU cards (assuming you can squeeze them all into a box, with the necessary power and connections).
  - mrfusion 8y ago
    I was 1999 dollars so maybe 5 or 6k today? Do all the gpu cards add up to 20 quintillion?
    - gibybo 8y ago
      Typical $500 graphics card today will do around 10 teraflops. You'd need 2k of them ($1m) for 20 quadrillion flops (the prediction is quadrillion not quintillion).
  - caymanjim 8y ago
    You can't really get a lot of GPU cards for $4000. Even two-year-old mid-range cards are $500/ea. The current high-end cards are $1500/ea.
- ianai 8y ago
  The last time I did the calculation we’re still lucky to get over a Tflop/s on a modern processor (if I did my math right). The 5 ghz wall and core counts contribute to the stagnation. The real hardware progress now is in non86 processors enabling higher core counts for the $, memory speed, and the eventual reality of permanent storage to be as fast as ram. Ie we’re likely to get “there” by increasing core counts and inter-process communication speeds.
- mtmail 8y ago
  Only supercomputers are in the range. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500#Top_500_ranking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500#Top_500_ranking Number 10 in the list for example can do 17 quadrillion calculations. (10^15 = petaFLOP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS).
edw519 8y ago
His predictions about technology seem to be much more accurate than his predictions about what people actually do with that technology. The technology has always been easier than the people. No surprise that has affected his "business" too.
aetherson 8y ago
There are a lot of predictions in there that are either correct or kind of, "Well, I mean, sort of." But if you step back and look at the forest instead of the trees, it's clear that we are much less technologically advanced than Kurzweil expected. This is a persistent failure of well-known futurists, probably because it's more interesting to predict rapid advances than slow ones.
- ehead 8y ago
  Agree - this article is pretty underwhelming. Rodney Brooks seems like the only person who knows how to write an article like this that delivers.
- krapp 8y ago
  >This is a persistent failure of well-known futurists, probably because it's more interesting to predict rapid advances than slow ones. Given his belief in a technological singularity, and the underlying assumption that infinite, exponential technological expansion is not only possible but inevitable, this shouldn't surprise anyone. All of his predictions are essentially religious prophecies of the coming of the Eschaton.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    That said, if he’s right about the singularity we should cut him some slack on the exact dates. As Elon Musk frequently points out, a small variation in the timing of an S-curve can make huge differences in the value at specific dates.
    - gooseus 8y ago
      I don't think that means cutting him some slack, that means that he shouldn't be so foolish as to make such specific claims about such specific timings. Also, my impression of Kurzweil was that he didn't think in S-curves, but assumed technological progress follows an unbounded exponential curve - which is why he thinks he'll become immortal and bring his father back from the dead.
- 8y ago
chillingeffect 8y ago
Although often vague, hese aren't bad, really, but you can see Kurzweils' bias for nerdiness and longevity: > Average life expectancy is over 100. > Most human workers spend the majority of their time acquiring new skills and knowledge. Also, just as a PSA, many people do not realize most deaf people don't consider themselves disabled, nor do they want to join the hearing world with cochlear implants bc it means leaving their hearing world. They are quite happy in their own network. For talking with hearing people, they use notes written on paper or phones. > Deaf people use special glasses that convert speech into text or signs, and music into images or tactile sensations. Cochlear and other implants are also widely used.
- grkvlt 8y ago
  That's crazy. I find it hard to believe that any profoundly deaf person would refuse some technological device that would give them perfect hearing because 'They are quite happy in their own network.' No matter whether they consider themselves disabled or not, hearing > not hearing, and anything they could do while deaf can still be done with 100% hearing restored.
  - gdy 8y ago
    Crazy people exist. http://www.hearingtimes.co.uk/News/83303/Do http://www.hearingtimes.co.uk/News/83303/Do
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    In the past, we (as a culture) attempted to civilize the uncivilized peoples, for we found it hard to believe that any uncivilized person would refuse the technological advances that would give them civilization. As it turns out, there were quite many people who actually did not prefer modern civilization and especially the forced nature of it, and we now look back on those attempts as hallmarks of an embarrassingly racist era. History suggests that we should be cautious of assuming that others share the same values we do, especially if we have never experienced the world in the same way as the other person. One thing you can't do with 100% hearing restored, for example, is enjoy true silence.
  - 8y ago
SpeakMouthWords 8y ago
I remember having band practice at our drummer's house when I was younger. The drummers mother and our vocalist knew each other. To reach the high notes, she said to him, you have to "sing higher" and your voice will naturally fail down to where you want to be. These predications kind of feel like that. Kurzweil was "singing higher" than where we ended up. Just enough that it's a clear overshoot, but not but so much that he's off-key.
- shhehebehdh 8y ago
  That’s a pretty charitable interpretation. I would suggest that we’d be in more or less exactly the same spot whether or not kurzweil published these predictions. He didn’t do it to advance the state of the art. Or if he did he’s totally deluded. He was just wrong.
- JackFr 8y ago
  I used to play pick up basketball. My friend's dad told me that if I want to be able to dunk a basketball, I needed to "jump higher" and I'd naturally reach the level of the hoop.
MPSimmons 8y ago
My take analyzing this. It was fun! ########## Definitely: ########## Computers are embedded everywhere in the environment (inside of furniture, jewelry, walls, clothing, etc.). People experience 3-D virtual reality through glasses and contact lenses that beam images directly to their retinas (retinal display). Coupled with an auditory source (headphones), users can remotely communicate with other people and access the Internet. (This isn't exclusive, but Siri and home assistants definitely count, imo) People communicate with their computers via two-way speech and gestures instead of with keyboards. Furthermore, most of this interaction occurs through computerized assistants with different personalities that the user can select or customize. Dealing with computers thus becomes more and more like dealing with a human being. Most people own more than one PC, though the concept of what a "computer" is has changed considerably: Computers are no longer limited in design to laptops or CPUs contained in a large box connected to a monitor. Instead, devices with computer capabilities come in all sorts of unexpected shapes and sizes. Cables connecting computers and peripherals have almost completely disappeared. Rotating computer hard drives are no longer used. (other than exceptional or specialized cases) Massively parallel neural nets and genetic algorithms are in wide use. Pinhead-sized cameras are everywhere. (pinhead may be stretching it, but I think 1999 Ray Kurzweil would count our cellphone-type cameras) Thin, lightweight, handheld displays with very high resolutions are the preferred means for viewing documents. The aforementioned computer eyeglasses and contact lenses are also used for this same purpose, and all download the information wirelessly. (less the glasses, but definitely the handheld displays) Computers have made paper books and documents almost completely obsolete. (grumble) Most learning is accomplished through intelligent, adaptive courseware presented by computer-simulated teachers. In the learning process, human adults fill the counselor and mentor roles instead of being academic instructors. These assistants are often not physically present, and help students remotely. (I'm counting the rise of MOOCs and things like Khan Academy in this. You may disagree) Students still learn together and socialize, though this is often done remotely via computers. All students have access to computers. Language translating machines are of much higher quality, and are routinely used in conversations. (I suspect we can count this, but I don't know if it's exactly routine yet. I've used it, an I'm not cutting edge in this realm) Effective language technologies (natural language processing, speech recognition, speech synthesis) exist. Anyone can wirelessly access the internet with wearable devices such as computerized glasses, contacts, and watches. Traditional computers and communication devices such as desktop PCs, laptops, and cell phones still exist, but most of their functions can be performed by wearable gadgets. Examples include reading books, listening to music, watching movies, playing games, and teleconferencing. Worldwide economic growth has continued. There has not been a global economic collapse. (There has been, (2 actually), but we got better) Household robots are ubiquitous and reliable. (Roomba? Google Home / Alexa? (though they may not be robotic) Computers do most of the vehicle driving—-humans are in fact prohibited from driving on highways unassisted. Furthermore, when humans do take over the wheel, the onboard computer system constantly monitors their actions and takes control whenever the human drives recklessly. As a result, there are very few transportation accidents. (I'm throwing this here, because it's so close. Everything here is true except for the unassisted highway driving, and the 'very few transportation accidents' part - the tech is definitely here) Most decisions made by humans involve consultation with machine intelligence. For example, a doctor may seek the advice of a digital assistant. A lawyer might utilize a virtual researcher. Or a shopper may receive recommendations from a software program that has learned his or her shopping habits. Interaction with virtual personalities becomes a primary interface. Public places and workplaces are ubiquitously monitored to prevent violence and all actions are recorded permanently. Personal privacy is a major political issue, and some people protect themselves with unbreakable computer codes. Virtual artists—creative computers capable of making their own art and music—emerge in all fields of the arts. Computerized watches, clothing, and jewelry can monitor the wearers health continuously. They can detect many types of diseases and offer recommendations for treatment. ################################### Probably, or in cutting edge cases: ################################### These special glasses and contact lenses can deliver "augmented reality" and "virtual reality" in three different ways. First, they can project "heads-up-displays" (HUDs) across the user's field of vision, superimposing images that stay in place in the environment regardless of the user's perspective or orientation. Second, virtual objects or people could be rendered in fixed locations by the glasses, so when the user's eyes look elsewhere, the objects appear to stay in their places. Third, the devices could block out the "real" world entirely and fully immerse the user in a virtual reality environment. Nanotechnology is more capable and is in use for specialized applications, yet it has not yet made it into the mainstream. "Nanoengineered machines" begin to be used in manufacturing. Most human workers spend the majority of their time acquiring new skills and knowledge. Blind people wear special glasses that interpret the real world for them through speech. Sighted people also use these glasses to amplify their own abilities. Retinal and neural implants also exist, but are in limited use because they are less useful. Deaf people use special glasses that convert speech into text or signs, and music into images or tactile sensations. Cochlear and other implants are also widely used. People with spinal cord injuries can walk and climb steps using computer-controlled nerve stimulation and exoskeletal robotic walkers. Computers are also found inside of some humans in the form of cybernetic implants. These are most commonly used by disabled people to regain normal physical faculties (e.g. Retinal implants allow the blind to see and spinal implants coupled with mechanical legs allow the paralyzed to walk). Devices that deliver sensations to the skin surface of their users (e.g. tight body suits and gloves) are also sometimes used in virtual reality to complete the experience. "Virtual sex"—in which two people are able to have sex with each other through virtual reality, or in which a human can have sex with a "simulated" partner that only exists on a computer—becomes a reality. Just as visual- and auditory virtual reality have come of age, haptic technology has fully matured and is completely convincing, yet requires the user to enter a V.R. booth. It is commonly used for computer sex and remote medical examinations. It is the preferred sexual medium since it is safe and enhances the experience. Prototype personal flying vehicles using microflaps exist. They are also primarily computer-controlled. (I don't know what Microflaps are. Most of the personal flying drone things I've seen are primarily computer controlled) Humans are beginning to have deep relationships with automated personalities, which hold some advantages over human partners. The depth of some computer personalities convinces some people that they should be accorded more rights. The basic needs of the underclass are met. (Not specified if this pertains only to the developed world or to all countries) (sigh) Most flying weapons are bird-sized robots. Some are as small as insects. ############ Not so much: ############ The computational capacity of a $4,000 computing device (in 1999 dollars) is approximately equal to the computational capability of the human brain (20 quadrillion calculations per second). The summed computational powers of all computers is comparable to the total brainpower of the human race. Most business transactions or information inquiries involve dealing with a simulated person. (it isn't majority online yet I think - https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/article/us-ecommerce-sales/ https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/article/us-ecommerce-sale...) The vast majority of business interactions occur between humans and simulated retailers, or between a human's virtual personal assistant and a simulated retailer. (samesies, but we're close!) Three-dimensional nanotube lattices are the dominant computing substrate. Destructive scans of the brain and noninvasive brain scans have allowed scientists to understand the brain much better. The algorithms that allow the relatively small genetic code of the brain to construct a much more complex organ are being transferred into computer neural nets. Most roads now have automated driving systems—networks of monitoring and communication devices that allow computer-controlled automobiles to safely navigate. While a growing number of humans believe that their computers and the simulated personalities they interact with are intelligent to the point of human-level consciousness, experts dismiss the possibility that any could pass the Turing Test. (throwing this here. In my experience, most people anthropomorphize, but don't believe the assistants are that intelligent) Average life expectancy is over 100.
hprotagonist 8y ago
This is, as usual for Kurzweil, full of Andy Grove Fallacies [0]: roughly, the premise that everything is a lot like a semiconductor so we can just apply Moore’s Law to biology. Many/most things are not nearly as simple as transistors and computation are. Nature prefers sigmoids over exponentials anyway, so it’s basically always unrealistic to predict things getting exponentially different unless you have really good priors to let you predict when that sigmoid necks over. [0] https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2007/11/06/andy_grove_rich_famous_smart_and_wrong https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2007/11/06/an...
- seppel 8y ago
  > Nature prefers sigmoids over exponentials anyway, so it’s basically always unrealistic to predict things getting exponentially different unless you have really good priors to let you predict when that sigmoid necks over. I'm pretty sure that Kurzweil is aware of this, given that he sees ICs already as the fifth paradigm in computation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near#/media/File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near#/media... The problem (it seems to me) is that there basically was no further paradigm shift after ICs so far, which would have been necessary for many of Kurzweil's predictions to come true this year.
  - ianai 8y ago
    I think mobile processors may be paving a way forward for us. They’ve been engineered all along to increase performance through increased core counts and decreased thermal footprints. I wonder how far they can be expanded in core counts for general computing and not graphical/vectorized computations. Could we eventually see 100s or even 1000s of cores in a U?
hitchhiker999 8y ago
meh. // as a programmer for 37 years, and a person heavily familiar with technology -- meh. That is 80s level crap right here, he didn't seem to know people yet. Fair enough, but still. The future is nothing like this man thinks, plus he doesn't understand the power of organic tech (the brain) - or the idea that any intelligence is hampered not by speed but by the density and depth of the "graph" it has to explore to provide context for any given answer. Just my 2c -- I'm sure I will get hammered for it sometime in the future.
- abecedarius 8y ago
  What in the 80s is brought to mind for you? I don't understand how you're singling out that decade.
- trashtester 8y ago
  The hammering may come sooner than you realize. Typical objects to many of the AI predictions are based on a mindset that sees computers are Turing Machines and focus on single threaded computational power. As I'm sure you know, AlphaGo/Alpha0 replaced much of the "graphs" for Go/Chess already, and as we talk, an open source clone (Lc0) is doing quite well in TCEC: https://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2018-tcec-s14pd https://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2018-tcec-s14pd I would not be surprised if this is the last year a classical engine wins that tournament. And as tensor-based computing (an other non-Turing Machiene substrates) continue to mature, I expect more and more problems to be solved by carefully designed special purpose substrate/software combination, enabling solutions to problems that are practically unsolvable with traditional algorithms running on Turing Machines.
  - grkvlt 8y ago
    Tensor-based computing, as you put it, is linear algebra, and it can be simulated on a turing machine quite easily, but this has really no relevance in terms of practical use. Maybe you are thinking of von-Neumann architectures? But there is no escaping the fact that tensorflow and similar algorithms have nothing special about them that requres a different computational paradigm...
SirHound 8y ago
It's worth remembering when these were written. > Most people own more than one PC, though the concept of what a "computer" is has changed considerably. Computers are no longer limited in design to laptops or CPUs contained in a large box connected to a monitor. Instead, devices with computer capabilities come in all sorts of unexpected shapes and sizes. Doesn't seem like much of a prediction these days, but from the vocabulary of the past the iPad and smartwatch would qualify, and they weren't easy to predict at the time. I remember telling my mum in the early 2000s that one day (I didn't realise quite how soon) all phones would just be touch screens. She didn't believe me, or thought she'd be dead before it happened. It is hard to imagine the future. I'd say we're tracking behind on a lot of these but I don't think he's so far off (and it'd be interesting to check again in just a couple years). For instance: > People communicate with their computers via two-way speech and gestures instead of with keyboards. In the parlance of the past, touch screens, virtual assistants and face unlock all qualify. > Most business transactions or information inquiries involve dealing with a simulated person. Our bar for a "simulated person" is quite high these days, but again look at it from the perspective of the past. I quite often have chats with services of varying sophistications that try and emulate a natural conversation. I'm not fooled, but that isn't the prediction. > Pinhead-sized cameras are everywhere. Quite literally. I have a couple looking at me right now. > Cables connecting computers and peripherals have almost completely disappeared. Most of my peripherals actually are wireless. "Almost completely disappeared"? Sadly not. But we're probably talking years, and this was written twenty years ago. > Rotating computer hard drives are no longer used. > Massively parallel neural nets and genetic algorithms are in wide use. Speak for themselves. > Thin, lightweight, handheld displays with very high resolutions are the preferred means for viewing documents. This one is interesting because again if you immerse yourself in the time it was written, paper was a very common occurrence on a work desk. Now? Rarely. > Worldwide economic growth has continued. There has not been a global economic collapse. Not as far off as it might seem. > "Virtual sex"—in which two people are able to have sex with each other through virtual reality Increasingly true. Check back in 12 months. > Three-dimensional nanotube lattices are the dominant computing substrate. Oh. I actually think that, all in all, and taken in the spirit of the time, these are surprisingly accurate. Many are of course way off, but I personally think they show a rare prescience.
jcranmer 8y ago
Predictions that sort of came true: > Most business transactions or information inquiries involve dealing with a simulated person. "Most" is strong, but virtual agents are definitely widespread and fairly heavily loathed. > Most people own more than one PC, though the concept of what a "computer" is has changed considerably Undoubtedly correct. > Cables connecting computers and peripherals have almost completely disappeared. > Rotating computer hard drives are no longer used. Very strong trendlines, although "almost completely" and "no longer" are not accurate. > Massively parallel neural nets and genetic algorithms are in wide use. Depending on how you define "wide use". Applications that rely on neural nets are very heavily used, but neural nets are closer to a niche technology than a widespread algorithmic hammer. > All students have access to computers. In developed countries, yes. > Public places and workplaces are ubiquitously monitored to prevent violence and all actions are recorded permanently. Personal privacy is a major political issue, and some people protect themselves with unbreakable computer codes. Scarily, this is more true than not. ... That's pretty much the lot of the 2019 predictions that came close to coming true. At best that's a 20% hit rate for predictions, although many of these hits require reinterpreting "most" as "many" and so on.
- godelmachine 8y ago
  >>Cables connecting computers and peripherals have almost completely disappeared. I am still dubious of the above statement.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    Wired monitors are the norm. Wireless keyboards and mice are probably about as common as wired variants. Wireless headphones are growing in popularity (somewhat forced by Apple's decision to kill the headphone connector). WiFi is more common than Ethernet for connecting printers and computers, especially anything that's not a desktop. (And even for desktops, most prebuilt PCs seem to come with a wireless card installed, which suggests that WiFi desktop usage models is very common). As I elaborated, "almost completely" is not true. But in the sense that the wireless alternatives are a strong share of the market and growing, I'd count it as a partially-true prediction.
gwbas1c 8y ago
A computer might be as powerful as my brain, or more powerful than my brain. That's not the issue. The real issue is knowing how to program it.
johnhenry 8y ago
If you scroll up, above the things that are specifically for 2019, there is a section for 2020 - 2050 containing the bullet point: - By 2020, there will be a new World government. I wonder what is going to have to change in 2019 for this to be true? Are we already there?
- notus 8y ago
  They are talking about the US 2020 elections obviously
andr 8y ago
Sadly some of the predictions where Kurzweil is the most wrong are the ones that depend not so much on technology, but on human society. Life expectancy over 100, the needs of the underclass being met, and most human workers spending their time acquiring knowledge are not the case, no matter which way you squint. Heck, even the paperless office is not really the case in many companies and countries.
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
I looked at each of the predictions and gave them a binary score. Of the 49 predictions on here 11 were in my estimation unambiguously right: 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 44. That's a 22% hit rate. I'm not sure if this is good or bad considering the predictions were made in 1999. Most of the "correct" predictions are of the following nature, namely that they are not absolute in nature: "Most people own more than one PC, though the concept of what a "computer" is has changed considerably: Computers are no longer limited in design to laptops or CPUs contained in a large box connected to a monitor. Instead, devices with computer capabilities come in all sorts of unexpected shapes and sizes" I marked some correct because there are examples of it existing, but the wording didn't indicate it was absolute for everyone, such as: "People with spinal cord injuries can walk and climb steps using computer-controlled nerve stimulation and exoskeletal robotic walkers." I marked many wrong because wording was absolute such as: "All students have access to computers." If the prediction would have been "Most..." or something more granular I think we could agree this is probably true. Many of the ones that are wrong are very wrong such as: "Computers do most of the vehicle driving—-humans are in fact prohibited from driving on highways unassisted. Furthermore, when humans do take over the wheel, the onboard computer system constantly monitors their actions and takes control whenever the human drives recklessly. As a result, there are very few transportation accidents."
yodon 8y ago
Given he was trying to predict 20 years into the future this is an amazingly good forecast compared to most other "in 20 years" lists. By my reading about half his projections are on target and surprisingly few are completely absurd. His biggest area of concentrated failure was probably around VR/AR/Haptics, likely a result of writing the list during the first irrational exuberance period around VR and VRML.
petermcneeley 8y ago
There are so many No/Fails that this is more of a wish list than a list of predictions.
fallingfrog 8y ago
I think that kurzweil basically makes 2 critical mistakes: 1) he underestimated the degree to which all those fancy products of modern capitalism are created not by machines making machines but by the nimble fingers of vast numbers of very poorly paid people- as it must be, because the maintenance on the machines to do the same work would be more expensive than just paying humans to do it. But from kurzweil’s point of view as a wealthy westerner, that fact is invisible, as it’s designed to be- the products simply appear to come out of a black box which we are not supposed to look inside of. 2) Technological progress has undergone a sort of phase transition in the last 100 years or so, with the discovery for the first- and only- time of fundamental facts about nature like electricity, thermodynamics, how human biology works, and so forth- discoveries that can only be made once. An s-curve looks like an exponential, for a while.

60 points by melling 8y ago

Interesting how several of the 2009 predictions were very wrong at the time but now are coming true in 2019. Perhaps we can look at the 2019 predictions to see what 2029 might look like.

mrfusion 8y ago

Oh wow these are way off. I wonder what went wrong?

ardy42 8y ago
> Oh wow these are way off. I wonder what went wrong? Ray Kurzweil went wrong, they're his predictions.
VMG 8y ago
His predictions went wrong
- mrfusion 8y ago
  Maybe he didn’t take into account how much things depend on software. He just assumed faster hardware will make things happen. And even on that front, Moore’s law died somewhere in the 2010s. That might have thrown these off.
  - jaked89 8y ago
    Moore's law didn't die, it's been para(lle)lized.
- neuronic 8y ago
  At least he sold books? Good for him.
base698 8y ago
It's impossible to predict the location of a bouncy ball when thrown in a small home with a cat present. Now extrapolate that to all of human activity twenty years out. Because we are confronted by speculation at every turn, in print, on video, on the net, in conversation, we may eventually conclude that it must have value. But it doesn’t. Because no matter how many people are speculating, no matter how familiar their faces, how good their makeup and how well they are lit, no matter how many weeks they appear before us in person or in columns, it remains true that none of them knows what the future holds. http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/ http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/
caymanjim 8y ago
This implies that there was ever a conceivable way any of the predictions would be right.
jcranmer 8y ago
A few things went wrong. The first is the evolution of microprocessors under Moore's Law. Since about 2005, we've come to realize that we can't afford to cool chips anymore if we crank up the frequency. What that means is that the advancements in building silicon is much less efficient at being turned into sustained computation rates. So building the exponential growth curves predicted required (and still requires) revolutionary thinking about how to build computers, rather than just easy gains each generation. The second thing that went wrong was what Derek Lowe refers to as the "Andy Grove Fallacy." This fallacy is that every hard problem (particularly in biological systems) can be solved by just shoveling computational power at it. In the modern day, we still can't model the neurological system of a nematode that has just 302 neural cells, let alone understanding how the entire organism works. Multiply that to the scale [1] of a human being, and we are truly ignorant of how things work except in the most general sweeping statements possible. The final thing is, well, people tend to underestimate the difficulty of problems. Things such as bipedal motion or turning a doorknob are problems that seem utterly trivial to us human beings (because we learn them before we can remember the process of learning!) but are absolutely maddening to robots. [1] Recall that complexity tends to grow exponentially with scale, not linearly--each pairwise, three-way, four-way, etc. interaction contributes to complexity.
gooseus 8y ago
I didn't read his book, but I would guess it was his failure to properly account for the diminishing returns of increased complexity in all the systems that these technological advances (increasingly) depend on. This includes the economic, political, ecological, and social systems, as well as the actual technological systems.

scandox 8y ago

> The basic needs of the underclass are met I mean if you're going to fantasize why not bring this forward and give imaginary relief to millions? I would have predicted this easily for 2016...or even maybe 2012. Obviously any earlier would have been ridiculous.

jimktrains2 8y ago
Poverty has been falling consitently and we, as a species, is more than able to meet everyone's needs, we simply choose not to because we're greedy and short-sighted.
- scandox 8y ago
  I think to talk about this as a moment in time when the job is done is the mistake. It needs to be considered both as something achieved and demonstrably sustained/sustainable for a meaningful length of time into the future. That's why I just find it funny to see that statement. For 2019. Generalizing to some global "underclass" that anyway doesn't exist.
  - jimktrains2 8y ago
    > It needs to be considered both as something achieved and demonstrably sustained/sustainable for a meaningful length of time into the future. 100% agree. I just wanted to highlight that one of the largest obstacles to ensuring that everyone's basic needs are met (and that our grandchildren will still have a planet they can easily live on) is our politics and short-nearsightedness, not necessarily our technology.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Please don't blame "us" / "the species" for the decisions and objectives of the 0.1%. That's putting the blame on everyone, while most people don't have any influence on the worldwide direction things are going in.
  - jimktrains2 8y ago

mrfusion 8y ago

Is a high end computer anywhere near 20 quadrillion calculations per second? Edit: 20 quintillion would be 20 million teraflops. Sound right?

1024core 8y ago
Not that I'm much into "predictions", but for $4000 you can get a lot of GPU cards (assuming you can squeeze them all into a box, with the necessary power and connections).
- mrfusion 8y ago
  I was 1999 dollars so maybe 5 or 6k today? Do all the gpu cards add up to 20 quintillion?
  - gibybo 8y ago
    Typical $500 graphics card today will do around 10 teraflops. You'd need 2k of them ($1m) for 20 quadrillion flops (the prediction is quadrillion not quintillion).
- caymanjim 8y ago
  You can't really get a lot of GPU cards for $4000. Even two-year-old mid-range cards are $500/ea. The current high-end cards are $1500/ea.
ianai 8y ago
The last time I did the calculation we’re still lucky to get over a Tflop/s on a modern processor (if I did my math right). The 5 ghz wall and core counts contribute to the stagnation. The real hardware progress now is in non86 processors enabling higher core counts for the $, memory speed, and the eventual reality of permanent storage to be as fast as ram. Ie we’re likely to get “there” by increasing core counts and inter-process communication speeds.
mtmail 8y ago
Only supercomputers are in the range. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500#Top_500_ranking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500#Top_500_ranking Number 10 in the list for example can do 17 quadrillion calculations. (10^15 = petaFLOP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS).

edw519 8y ago

His predictions about technology seem to be much more accurate than his predictions about what people actually do with that technology. The technology has always been easier than the people. No surprise that has affected his "business" too.

aetherson 8y ago

There are a lot of predictions in there that are either correct or kind of, "Well, I mean, sort of." But if you step back and look at the forest instead of the trees, it's clear that we are much less technologically advanced than Kurzweil expected. This is a persistent failure of well-known futurists, probably because it's more interesting to predict rapid advances than slow ones.

ehead 8y ago
Agree - this article is pretty underwhelming. Rodney Brooks seems like the only person who knows how to write an article like this that delivers.
krapp 8y ago
>This is a persistent failure of well-known futurists, probably because it's more interesting to predict rapid advances than slow ones. Given his belief in a technological singularity, and the underlying assumption that infinite, exponential technological expansion is not only possible but inevitable, this shouldn't surprise anyone. All of his predictions are essentially religious prophecies of the coming of the Eschaton.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  That said, if he’s right about the singularity we should cut him some slack on the exact dates. As Elon Musk frequently points out, a small variation in the timing of an S-curve can make huge differences in the value at specific dates.
  - gooseus 8y ago
    I don't think that means cutting him some slack, that means that he shouldn't be so foolish as to make such specific claims about such specific timings. Also, my impression of Kurzweil was that he didn't think in S-curves, but assumed technological progress follows an unbounded exponential curve - which is why he thinks he'll become immortal and bring his father back from the dead.
8y ago

chillingeffect 8y ago

Although often vague, hese aren't bad, really, but you can see Kurzweils' bias for nerdiness and longevity: > Average life expectancy is over 100. > Most human workers spend the majority of their time acquiring new skills and knowledge. Also, just as a PSA, many people do not realize most deaf people don't consider themselves disabled, nor do they want to join the hearing world with cochlear implants bc it means leaving their hearing world. They are quite happy in their own network. For talking with hearing people, they use notes written on paper or phones. > Deaf people use special glasses that convert speech into text or signs, and music into images or tactile sensations. Cochlear and other implants are also widely used.

grkvlt 8y ago
That's crazy. I find it hard to believe that any profoundly deaf person would refuse some technological device that would give them perfect hearing because 'They are quite happy in their own network.' No matter whether they consider themselves disabled or not, hearing > not hearing, and anything they could do while deaf can still be done with 100% hearing restored.
- gdy 8y ago
  Crazy people exist. http://www.hearingtimes.co.uk/News/83303/Do http://www.hearingtimes.co.uk/News/83303/Do
- jcranmer 8y ago
  In the past, we (as a culture) attempted to civilize the uncivilized peoples, for we found it hard to believe that any uncivilized person would refuse the technological advances that would give them civilization. As it turns out, there were quite many people who actually did not prefer modern civilization and especially the forced nature of it, and we now look back on those attempts as hallmarks of an embarrassingly racist era. History suggests that we should be cautious of assuming that others share the same values we do, especially if we have never experienced the world in the same way as the other person. One thing you can't do with 100% hearing restored, for example, is enjoy true silence.
- 8y ago

SpeakMouthWords 8y ago

I remember having band practice at our drummer's house when I was younger. The drummers mother and our vocalist knew each other. To reach the high notes, she said to him, you have to "sing higher" and your voice will naturally fail down to where you want to be. These predications kind of feel like that. Kurzweil was "singing higher" than where we ended up. Just enough that it's a clear overshoot, but not but so much that he's off-key.

shhehebehdh 8y ago
That’s a pretty charitable interpretation. I would suggest that we’d be in more or less exactly the same spot whether or not kurzweil published these predictions. He didn’t do it to advance the state of the art. Or if he did he’s totally deluded. He was just wrong.
JackFr 8y ago
I used to play pick up basketball. My friend's dad told me that if I want to be able to dunk a basketball, I needed to "jump higher" and I'd naturally reach the level of the hoop.

MPSimmons 8y ago

My take analyzing this. It was fun! ########## Definitely: ########## Computers are embedded everywhere in the environment (inside of furniture, jewelry, walls, clothing, etc.). People experience 3-D virtual reality through glasses and contact lenses that beam images directly to their retinas (retinal display). Coupled with an auditory source (headphones), users can remotely communicate with other people and access the Internet. (This isn't exclusive, but Siri and home assistants definitely count, imo) People communicate with their computers via two-way speech and gestures instead of with keyboards. Furthermore, most of this interaction occurs through computerized assistants with different personalities that the user can select or customize. Dealing with computers thus becomes more and more like dealing with a human being. Most people own more than one PC, though the concept of what a "computer" is has changed considerably: Computers are no longer limited in design to laptops or CPUs contained in a large box connected to a monitor. Instead, devices with computer capabilities come in all sorts of unexpected shapes and sizes. Cables connecting computers and peripherals have almost completely disappeared. Rotating computer hard drives are no longer used. (other than exceptional or specialized cases) Massively parallel neural nets and genetic algorithms are in wide use. Pinhead-sized cameras are everywhere. (pinhead may be stretching it, but I think 1999 Ray Kurzweil would count our cellphone-type cameras) Thin, lightweight, handheld displays with very high resolutions are the preferred means for viewing documents. The aforementioned computer eyeglasses and contact lenses are also used for this same purpose, and all download the information wirelessly. (less the glasses, but definitely the handheld displays) Computers have made paper books and documents almost completely obsolete. (grumble) Most learning is accomplished through intelligent, adaptive courseware presented by computer-simulated teachers. In the learning process, human adults fill the counselor and mentor roles instead of being academic instructors. These assistants are often not physically present, and help students remotely. (I'm counting the rise of MOOCs and things like Khan Academy in this. You may disagree) Students still learn together and socialize, though this is often done remotely via computers. All students have access to computers. Language translating machines are of much higher quality, and are routinely used in conversations. (I suspect we can count this, but I don't know if it's exactly routine yet. I've used it, an I'm not cutting edge in this realm) Effective language technologies (natural language processing, speech recognition, speech synthesis) exist. Anyone can wirelessly access the internet with wearable devices such as computerized glasses, contacts, and watches. Traditional computers and communication devices such as desktop PCs, laptops, and cell phones still exist, but most of their functions can be performed by wearable gadgets. Examples include reading books, listening to music, watching movies, playing games, and teleconferencing. Worldwide economic growth has continued. There has not been a global economic collapse. (There has been, (2 actually), but we got better) Household robots are ubiquitous and reliable. (Roomba? Google Home / Alexa? (though they may not be robotic) Computers do most of the vehicle driving—-humans are in fact prohibited from driving on highways unassisted. Furthermore, when humans do take over the wheel, the onboard computer system constantly monitors their actions and takes control whenever the human drives recklessly. As a result, there are very few transportation accidents. (I'm throwing this here, because it's so close. Everything here is true except for the unassisted highway driving, and the 'very few transportation accidents' part - the tech is definitely here) Most decisions made by humans involve consultation with machine intelligence. For example, a doctor may seek the advice of a digital assistant. A lawyer might utilize a virtual researcher. Or a shopper may receive recommendations from a software program that has learned his or her shopping habits. Interaction with virtual personalities becomes a primary interface. Public places and workplaces are ubiquitously monitored to prevent violence and all actions are recorded permanently. Personal privacy is a major political issue, and some people protect themselves with unbreakable computer codes. Virtual artists—creative computers capable of making their own art and music—emerge in all fields of the arts. Computerized watches, clothing, and jewelry can monitor the wearers health continuously. They can detect many types of diseases and offer recommendations for treatment. ################################### Probably, or in cutting edge cases: ################################### These special glasses and contact lenses can deliver "augmented reality" and "virtual reality" in three different ways. First, they can project "heads-up-displays" (HUDs) across the user's field of vision, superimposing images that stay in place in the environment regardless of the user's perspective or orientation. Second, virtual objects or people could be rendered in fixed locations by the glasses, so when the user's eyes look elsewhere, the objects appear to stay in their places. Third, the devices could block out the "real" world entirely and fully immerse the user in a virtual reality environment. Nanotechnology is more capable and is in use for specialized applications, yet it has not yet made it into the mainstream. "Nanoengineered machines" begin to be used in manufacturing. Most human workers spend the majority of their time acquiring new skills and knowledge. Blind people wear special glasses that interpret the real world for them through speech. Sighted people also use these glasses to amplify their own abilities. Retinal and neural implants also exist, but are in limited use because they are less useful. Deaf people use special glasses that convert speech into text or signs, and music into images or tactile sensations. Cochlear and other implants are also widely used. People with spinal cord injuries can walk and climb steps using computer-controlled nerve stimulation and exoskeletal robotic walkers. Computers are also found inside of some humans in the form of cybernetic implants. These are most commonly used by disabled people to regain normal physical faculties (e.g. Retinal implants allow the blind to see and spinal implants coupled with mechanical legs allow the paralyzed to walk). Devices that deliver sensations to the skin surface of their users (e.g. tight body suits and gloves) are also sometimes used in virtual reality to complete the experience. "Virtual sex"—in which two people are able to have sex with each other through virtual reality, or in which a human can have sex with a "simulated" partner that only exists on a computer—becomes a reality. Just as visual- and auditory virtual reality have come of age, haptic technology has fully matured and is completely convincing, yet requires the user to enter a V.R. booth. It is commonly used for computer sex and remote medical examinations. It is the preferred sexual medium since it is safe and enhances the experience. Prototype personal flying vehicles using microflaps exist. They are also primarily computer-controlled. (I don't know what Microflaps are. Most of the personal flying drone things I've seen are primarily computer controlled) Humans are beginning to have deep relationships with automated personalities, which hold some advantages over human partners. The depth of some computer personalities convinces some people that they should be accorded more rights. The basic needs of the underclass are met. (Not specified if this pertains only to the developed world or to all countries) (sigh) Most flying weapons are bird-sized robots. Some are as small as insects. ############ Not so much: ############ The computational capacity of a $4,000 computing device (in 1999 dollars) is approximately equal to the computational capability of the human brain (20 quadrillion calculations per second). The summed computational powers of all computers is comparable to the total brainpower of the human race. Most business transactions or information inquiries involve dealing with a simulated person. (it isn't majority online yet I think - https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/article/us-ecommerce-sales/ https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/article/us-ecommerce-sale...) The vast majority of business interactions occur between humans and simulated retailers, or between a human's virtual personal assistant and a simulated retailer. (samesies, but we're close!) Three-dimensional nanotube lattices are the dominant computing substrate. Destructive scans of the brain and noninvasive brain scans have allowed scientists to understand the brain much better. The algorithms that allow the relatively small genetic code of the brain to construct a much more complex organ are being transferred into computer neural nets. Most roads now have automated driving systems—networks of monitoring and communication devices that allow computer-controlled automobiles to safely navigate. While a growing number of humans believe that their computers and the simulated personalities they interact with are intelligent to the point of human-level consciousness, experts dismiss the possibility that any could pass the Turing Test. (throwing this here. In my experience, most people anthropomorphize, but don't believe the assistants are that intelligent) Average life expectancy is over 100.

hprotagonist 8y ago

This is, as usual for Kurzweil, full of Andy Grove Fallacies [0]: roughly, the premise that everything is a lot like a semiconductor so we can just apply Moore’s Law to biology. Many/most things are not nearly as simple as transistors and computation are. Nature prefers sigmoids over exponentials anyway, so it’s basically always unrealistic to predict things getting exponentially different unless you have really good priors to let you predict when that sigmoid necks over. [0] https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2007/11/06/andy_grove_rich_famous_smart_and_wrong https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2007/11/06/an...

seppel 8y ago
> Nature prefers sigmoids over exponentials anyway, so it’s basically always unrealistic to predict things getting exponentially different unless you have really good priors to let you predict when that sigmoid necks over. I'm pretty sure that Kurzweil is aware of this, given that he sees ICs already as the fifth paradigm in computation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near#/media/File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near#/media... The problem (it seems to me) is that there basically was no further paradigm shift after ICs so far, which would have been necessary for many of Kurzweil's predictions to come true this year.
- ianai 8y ago
  I think mobile processors may be paving a way forward for us. They’ve been engineered all along to increase performance through increased core counts and decreased thermal footprints. I wonder how far they can be expanded in core counts for general computing and not graphical/vectorized computations. Could we eventually see 100s or even 1000s of cores in a U?

hitchhiker999 8y ago

meh. // as a programmer for 37 years, and a person heavily familiar with technology -- meh. That is 80s level crap right here, he didn't seem to know people yet. Fair enough, but still. The future is nothing like this man thinks, plus he doesn't understand the power of organic tech (the brain) - or the idea that any intelligence is hampered not by speed but by the density and depth of the "graph" it has to explore to provide context for any given answer. Just my 2c -- I'm sure I will get hammered for it sometime in the future.

abecedarius 8y ago
What in the 80s is brought to mind for you? I don't understand how you're singling out that decade.
trashtester 8y ago
The hammering may come sooner than you realize. Typical objects to many of the AI predictions are based on a mindset that sees computers are Turing Machines and focus on single threaded computational power. As I'm sure you know, AlphaGo/Alpha0 replaced much of the "graphs" for Go/Chess already, and as we talk, an open source clone (Lc0) is doing quite well in TCEC: https://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2018-tcec-s14pd https://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2018-tcec-s14pd I would not be surprised if this is the last year a classical engine wins that tournament. And as tensor-based computing (an other non-Turing Machiene substrates) continue to mature, I expect more and more problems to be solved by carefully designed special purpose substrate/software combination, enabling solutions to problems that are practically unsolvable with traditional algorithms running on Turing Machines.
- grkvlt 8y ago
  Tensor-based computing, as you put it, is linear algebra, and it can be simulated on a turing machine quite easily, but this has really no relevance in terms of practical use. Maybe you are thinking of von-Neumann architectures? But there is no escaping the fact that tensorflow and similar algorithms have nothing special about them that requres a different computational paradigm...

SirHound 8y ago

It's worth remembering when these were written. > Most people own more than one PC, though the concept of what a "computer" is has changed considerably. Computers are no longer limited in design to laptops or CPUs contained in a large box connected to a monitor. Instead, devices with computer capabilities come in all sorts of unexpected shapes and sizes. Doesn't seem like much of a prediction these days, but from the vocabulary of the past the iPad and smartwatch would qualify, and they weren't easy to predict at the time. I remember telling my mum in the early 2000s that one day (I didn't realise quite how soon) all phones would just be touch screens. She didn't believe me, or thought she'd be dead before it happened. It is hard to imagine the future. I'd say we're tracking behind on a lot of these but I don't think he's so far off (and it'd be interesting to check again in just a couple years). For instance: > People communicate with their computers via two-way speech and gestures instead of with keyboards. In the parlance of the past, touch screens, virtual assistants and face unlock all qualify. > Most business transactions or information inquiries involve dealing with a simulated person. Our bar for a "simulated person" is quite high these days, but again look at it from the perspective of the past. I quite often have chats with services of varying sophistications that try and emulate a natural conversation. I'm not fooled, but that isn't the prediction. > Pinhead-sized cameras are everywhere. Quite literally. I have a couple looking at me right now. > Cables connecting computers and peripherals have almost completely disappeared. Most of my peripherals actually are wireless. "Almost completely disappeared"? Sadly not. But we're probably talking years, and this was written twenty years ago. > Rotating computer hard drives are no longer used. > Massively parallel neural nets and genetic algorithms are in wide use. Speak for themselves. > Thin, lightweight, handheld displays with very high resolutions are the preferred means for viewing documents. This one is interesting because again if you immerse yourself in the time it was written, paper was a very common occurrence on a work desk. Now? Rarely. > Worldwide economic growth has continued. There has not been a global economic collapse. Not as far off as it might seem. > "Virtual sex"—in which two people are able to have sex with each other through virtual reality Increasingly true. Check back in 12 months. > Three-dimensional nanotube lattices are the dominant computing substrate. Oh. I actually think that, all in all, and taken in the spirit of the time, these are surprisingly accurate. Many are of course way off, but I personally think they show a rare prescience.

jcranmer 8y ago

Predictions that sort of came true: > Most business transactions or information inquiries involve dealing with a simulated person. "Most" is strong, but virtual agents are definitely widespread and fairly heavily loathed. > Most people own more than one PC, though the concept of what a "computer" is has changed considerably Undoubtedly correct. > Cables connecting computers and peripherals have almost completely disappeared. > Rotating computer hard drives are no longer used. Very strong trendlines, although "almost completely" and "no longer" are not accurate. > Massively parallel neural nets and genetic algorithms are in wide use. Depending on how you define "wide use". Applications that rely on neural nets are very heavily used, but neural nets are closer to a niche technology than a widespread algorithmic hammer. > All students have access to computers. In developed countries, yes. > Public places and workplaces are ubiquitously monitored to prevent violence and all actions are recorded permanently. Personal privacy is a major political issue, and some people protect themselves with unbreakable computer codes. Scarily, this is more true than not. ... That's pretty much the lot of the 2019 predictions that came close to coming true. At best that's a 20% hit rate for predictions, although many of these hits require reinterpreting "most" as "many" and so on.

godelmachine 8y ago
>>Cables connecting computers and peripherals have almost completely disappeared. I am still dubious of the above statement.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  Wired monitors are the norm. Wireless keyboards and mice are probably about as common as wired variants. Wireless headphones are growing in popularity (somewhat forced by Apple's decision to kill the headphone connector). WiFi is more common than Ethernet for connecting printers and computers, especially anything that's not a desktop. (And even for desktops, most prebuilt PCs seem to come with a wireless card installed, which suggests that WiFi desktop usage models is very common). As I elaborated, "almost completely" is not true. But in the sense that the wireless alternatives are a strong share of the market and growing, I'd count it as a partially-true prediction.

gwbas1c 8y ago

A computer might be as powerful as my brain, or more powerful than my brain. That's not the issue. The real issue is knowing how to program it.

johnhenry 8y ago

If you scroll up, above the things that are specifically for 2019, there is a section for 2020 - 2050 containing the bullet point: - By 2020, there will be a new World government. I wonder what is going to have to change in 2019 for this to be true? Are we already there?

notus 8y ago
They are talking about the US 2020 elections obviously

andr 8y ago

Sadly some of the predictions where Kurzweil is the most wrong are the ones that depend not so much on technology, but on human society. Life expectancy over 100, the needs of the underclass being met, and most human workers spending their time acquiring knowledge are not the case, no matter which way you squint. Heck, even the paperless office is not really the case in many companies and countries.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

I looked at each of the predictions and gave them a binary score. Of the 49 predictions on here 11 were in my estimation unambiguously right: 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 44. That's a 22% hit rate. I'm not sure if this is good or bad considering the predictions were made in 1999. Most of the "correct" predictions are of the following nature, namely that they are not absolute in nature: "Most people own more than one PC, though the concept of what a "computer" is has changed considerably: Computers are no longer limited in design to laptops or CPUs contained in a large box connected to a monitor. Instead, devices with computer capabilities come in all sorts of unexpected shapes and sizes" I marked some correct because there are examples of it existing, but the wording didn't indicate it was absolute for everyone, such as: "People with spinal cord injuries can walk and climb steps using computer-controlled nerve stimulation and exoskeletal robotic walkers." I marked many wrong because wording was absolute such as: "All students have access to computers." If the prediction would have been "Most..." or something more granular I think we could agree this is probably true. Many of the ones that are wrong are very wrong such as: "Computers do most of the vehicle driving—-humans are in fact prohibited from driving on highways unassisted. Furthermore, when humans do take over the wheel, the onboard computer system constantly monitors their actions and takes control whenever the human drives recklessly. As a result, there are very few transportation accidents."

yodon 8y ago

Given he was trying to predict 20 years into the future this is an amazingly good forecast compared to most other "in 20 years" lists. By my reading about half his projections are on target and surprisingly few are completely absurd. His biggest area of concentrated failure was probably around VR/AR/Haptics, likely a result of writing the list during the first irrational exuberance period around VR and VRML.

petermcneeley 8y ago

There are so many No/Fails that this is more of a wish list than a list of predictions.

fallingfrog 8y ago

I think that kurzweil basically makes 2 critical mistakes: 1) he underestimated the degree to which all those fancy products of modern capitalism are created not by machines making machines but by the nimble fingers of vast numbers of very poorly paid people- as it must be, because the maintenance on the machines to do the same work would be more expensive than just paying humans to do it. But from kurzweil’s point of view as a wealthy westerner, that fact is invisible, as it’s designed to be- the products simply appear to come out of a black box which we are not supposed to look inside of. 2) Technological progress has undergone a sort of phase transition in the last 100 years or so, with the discovery for the first- and only- time of fundamental facts about nature like electricity, thermodynamics, how human biology works, and so forth- discoveries that can only be made once. An s-curve looks like an exponential, for a while.