I am going to assume you're being serious here, and that you believe the link you provided proves "how wrong" he is. The other option is that you're stating th

I am going to assume you're being serious here, and that you believe the link you provided proves "how wrong" he is. The other option is that you're stating the opposite, but I can't tell. That said, I don't see how that link proves him wrong at all. I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to be exactly right with their predictions - no matter how informed they are - so some inaccuracies in his predictions are completely expected. Especially when you are looking at an exponential curve, the absolute values along the way can seem far off, but compared to a linear approach they are a much closer fit to reality. Obviously the "singularity" is a huge point of contention because of how ridiculous it sounds, but if we disagree, we should come up with our own explanation. If AIs start improving on themselves in a self-directed way with similar pattern-recognition systems as our brain, do we not expect the advancement of technology to explode? If not, then why not? It's really easy for us to sit back and criticize his very public, specific predictions without making them ourselves. The questions we should be asking are not whether the exact things he is predicting happen (although he has been very close in the past), but whether his method of doing the predictions and lines of logic make sense. If so, then he may be off by a constant factor, not an exponential one.