Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


To go ad-free join as a Member.


How accurate are Ray Kurzweil's predictions?

kurzweil singularity breakthroughs biomedicine dna sequencing computing brain artificial intelligence robotics

  • Please log in to reply
185 replies to this topic

#181 OFFLINE   Godof Smallthings

  • Registered User
  • 122 posts
  • 21
  • Location:Thailand

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:25 PM

View PostLink, on 12 August 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

I just don't know why anyone would want a mobile phone built into their t-shirt, it's so tacky. Besides, i think people like having their phone as a physical object, especially as they move towards being more like "pocket computers". Phones are fashion accessories and status symbols as well as communication devices.

This is true. Still, I can't help but associate to how ubiquitous wrist watches used to be, how strong their fashion and status value used to be, and how they have declined in use. It is technically possible to integrate a smartphone into a wrist-worn device, but we don't. Yet, take a look at science fiction from the 70s and 80s and see how everyone envisioned that the smart devices would be mainly worn on the wrist, like the watches used in those days. I'm not saying that t-shirt smart devices will necessarily win the battle, but I don't think it is reasonable to assume that everyone will always be wanting hand-held gadgets, either. In the end, what will happen is complete integration with our bodies. Whether clothes will be a common intermediary step or not, I don't know.

Quote

As for the glasses, i can't see myself being bothered to wear glasses simply so that i can have the time, date and weather forecast perpetually plastered in the top right hand corner of my vision. But maybe i'm misunderstanding what Ray is talking about here.

I side mostly with Ray on this one too. Most people won't mind using glasses with such abilities, especially not if they are marketed by some Steve Jobs-like individual. Anyway, yet again, the glasses would just be a temporary phase before we get that info (and anything else) integrated with the brain.

#182 OFFLINE   Godof Smallthings Re: How accurate are Ray Kurzweil's predictions?

  • Registered User
  • 122 posts
  • 21
  • Location:Thailand

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:26 AM

As technical director of Google, he is now in the best position possible to create the changes he has envisioned.

#183 OFFLINE   Mind Re: How accurate are Ray Kurzweil's predictions?

  • Lifetime Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 12,509 posts
  • 1,571
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:24 PM

A lesswrong tally of Kurzweil's predictions is not too positive.

#184 OFFLINE   Mind Re: How accurate are Ray Kurzweil's predictions?

  • Lifetime Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 12,509 posts
  • 1,571
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 12 February 2013 - 07:34 PM

View PostMind, on 10 January 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:


Getting even closer to an immersive virtual experience, which Kurzweil predicted/mentioned in his various books, but pretty much everyone else predicted as well for decades.

The obvious limitation (hardest hack) is of course 3D motion. Project Holodeck has thus far gotten around the limitation by creating a game world that does not require much bodily movement by the user. They could use a moving floor in order to amp it up a bit more, but that would be an expensive proposition and would not be a "home gaming" system.

#185 OFFLINE   reason Re: How accurate are Ray Kurzweil's predictions?

  • Registered User, Guardian Reason
  • 1,083 posts
  • 57
  • Location:US

Posted 15 April 2013 - 09:33 AM

Like many, I think that Ray Kurzweil is overly optimistic on the timeline for progress in technology. I don't think he's wrong in terms of his high level view on where our technology is going, just a few decades on the early side - which is unfortunate for those of us who will age to death before the advent of rejuvenation biotechnology. It is certainly the case that the first draft of technologies to repair the underlying biological damage that causes aging could arrive fairly soon, within two decades - but it's not just a matter of building them, even though there are detailed research and development plans for doing so.

The issues are persuasion and fundraising; when it comes to aging, the mainstream of the research community is set on goals that either have nothing to do with human longevity, or will do very little to extend life even after being realized at great cost. So the comparatively tiny and underfunded shard of the scientific community whose members are interested in realizing effective means of rejuvenating the old will likely spend the next twenty years on laying the groundwork, prototyping the biotechnologies, proving their case ever more completely, growing funding, and persuading ever more researchers to do the same. If there were hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to this cause today, we could leap ahead twenty years in this timeline - but there are not. The money and large supportive community still has to be bootstrapped, building on the present early phase in the growth of modern rejuvenation research, underway successfully but slowly for the past decade or so, giving rise to organizations like the Methuselah Foundation and SENS Research Foundation.

Here is Kurzweil's take on timelines, which are derived from his analysis of trends in technological capabilities:

To listen to Mr. Kurzweil or read his several books is to be flummoxed by a series of forecasts that hardly seem realizable in the next 40 years. But this is merely a flaw in my brain, he assures me. Humans are wired to expect "linear" change from their world. They have a hard time grasping the "accelerating, exponential" change that is the nature of information technology. "A kid in Africa with a smartphone is walking around with a trillion dollars of computation circa 1970," he says. Project that rate forward, and everything will change dramatically in the next few decades.

"I'm right on the cusp," he adds. "I think some of us will make it through" - he means baby boomers, who can hope to experience practical immortality if they hang on for another 15 years. By then, Mr. Kurzweil expects medical technology to be adding a year of life expectancy every year. We will start to outrun our own deaths. And then the wonders really begin.

Mr. Kurzweil's ideas on death and immortality, not his impressive record as an entrepreneur, are what bring TV newsmagazines and print reporters to his door these days. I suggest to him he's discovered the power of the prophetic voice and is borne forward by the rewarding feelings that come from giving people hope in the face of their profoundest fears. My insight does not impress him. He says he just gets satisfaction from seeing his ideas, like his inventions, wield a positive force in the world. People blame technology for humanity's problems, he says. They are much too pessimistic about its power to solve poverty, disease and pollution in our lifetimes.

Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324504704578412581386515510.html



<br> <br>View the full article

#186 OFFLINE   william7 Re: How accurate are Ray Kurzweil's predictions?

  • Registered User
  • 1,675 posts
  • 4

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:51 PM

It's money making techno-capitalists like Ray Kurzweil who will end up making us slaves to the machine with a big brother ruling class in charge.Under current conditions, it's insanity to merge the human mind with artificially intelligent machines as Kurzweil and others of his persuasion are advocating. Look what big brother is already doing in regads to surveilance of digital communications as described in the article below. The nazi ruling class of the world would have a field day once they attained the ability to monitor and manipulate the human thought process with the futuristic technology Kurzweil describes and advocates. It would be just like George Orwell's picture of the Nazi jack boot stomping humanity in the face forever.


http://us4.campaign-...d3&e=357f864519


Round the Clock Surveillance: Is This the Price of Living in a ‘Free, Safe’ Society?

May 13, 2013
By John W. Whitehead


“If you’re not a terrorist, if you’re not a threat, prove it. This is the price you pay to live in free society right now. It’s just the way it is.”—Sergeant Ed Mullins of the New York Police Department  

Immediately following the devastating 9/11 attacks, which destroyed the illusion of invulnerability which had defined American society since the end of the Cold War, many Americans willingly ceded their rights and liberties to government officials who promised them that the feeling of absolute safety could be restored.
In the 12 years since, we have been subjected to a series of deceptions, subterfuges and scare tactics by the government, all largely aimed at amassing more power for the federal agencies and extending their control over the populace. Starting with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, continuing with the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and coming to a head with the assassination of American citizens abroad, the importing of drones and other weapons of compliance, and the rise in domestic surveillance, we have witnessed the onslaught of a full-blown crisis in government.
Still Americans have gone along with these assaults on their freedoms unquestioningly.
Even with our freedoms in shambles, our country in debt, our so-called “justice” system weighted in favor of corporations and the police state, our government officials dancing to the tune of corporate oligarchs, and a growing intolerance on the part of the government for anyone who challenges the status quo, Americans have yet to say “enough is enough.”
Now, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, we are once again being assured that if we only give up a few more liberties and what little remains of our privacy, we will achieve that elusive sense of security we’ve yet to attain. This is the same song and dance that comes after every tragedy, and it’s that same song and dance which has left us buying into the illusion that we are a free, safe society.
The reality of life in America tells a different tale, however. For example, in a May 2013 interview with CNN, former FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente disclosed that the federal government is keeping track of all digital communications that occur within the United States, whether or not those communicating are American citizens, and whether or not they have a warrant to do so.
As revelatory as the disclosure was, it caused barely a ripple of dismay among Americans, easily distracted by the torrent of what passes for entertainment news today. Yet it confirms what has become increasingly apparent in the years after 9/11: the federal government is literally tracking any and all communications occurring within the United States, without concern for the legal limitations of such activity, and without informing the American people that they are doing so.
Clemente dropped his bombshell during a CNN interview about authorities’ attempts to determine the nature of communications between deceased Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his widow Katherine Russell. In the course of that conversation, Clemente revealed that federal officials will not only be able to access any voicemails that may have been left by either party, but that the entirety of the phone conversations they had will be at federal agents’ finger tips.
“We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation,” stated Clemente. “All of that stuff [meaning phone conversations occurring in America] is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.” A few days later, Clemente was asked to clarify his comments, at which point he said, “There is a way to look at all digital communications in the past. No digital communication is secure.”
In other words, there is no form of digital communication that the government cannot and does not monitor—phone calls, emails, text messages, tweets, Facebook posts, internet video chats, etc., are all accessible, trackable and downloadable by federal agents.
At one time, such actions by the government would not only have been viewed as unacceptable, they would also have been considered illegal. However, government officials have been engaged in an ongoing attempt to legitimize these actions by passing laws that make the lives of all Americans an open book for government agents. For example, while the nation was caught up in the drama of the Boston bombing and the ensuing military-style occupation of the city by local and federal police, Congress passed a little-noticed piece of legislation known as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). The legislation, which the House of Representatives approved by an overwhelming margin of 288-127, will allow internet companies to share their users’ private data with the federal government and other private companies in order to combat so-called “cyber threats.”
In short, the law dismantles any notion of privacy on the internet, opening every action one undertakes online, whether emailing, shopping, banking, or just browsing, to scrutiny by government agents. While CISPA has yet to clear the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the spirit of it is alive and well. In fact, officials in the Obama administration have for some time now been authorizing corporate information sharing and spying in secret through the use of executive orders and other tactics.
The Justice Department, for instance, has been issuing so-called “2511 letters” to various internet service providers like AT&T, which immunize them from being prosecuted under federal wiretapping laws for providing the federal government with private information. Despite federal court rulings to the contrary, the Department of Justice continues to assert that it does not require a warrant to access Americans’ emails, Facebook chats, and other forms of digital communication.
While it may be tempting to lay the full blame for these erosions of our privacy on the Obama administration, they are simply continuing a system of mass surveillance, the seeds of which were planted in the weeks after 9/11, when the National Security Agency (NSA) began illegally tracking the communications of American citizens. According to a Washington Post article published in 2010, the NSA continues to collect 1.7 billion communications, whether telephone, email or otherwise, every single day.
The NSA and Department of Justice are just two pieces of a vast surveillance network which encompasses and implicates most of the federal government, as well as the majority of technology and telecommunications companies in the United States. For the past two years, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has approved literally every single request by the federal government to spy on people within the United States. There have been some 4,000 applications rubberstamped by the court in the past two years, applications which allow federal officials to monitor the communications of any person in the United States, including American citizens, if they are believed to be in contact with someone overseas.
These government-initiated spying programs depend in large part on the willingness of corporations to hand over personal information about their customers to government officials. Sometimes the government purchases the information outright. At other times, the government issues National Security Letters, which allow the government to force companies to hand over personal information without a warrant or probable cause.
Some web companies, such as Skype, have already altered their products to allow government access to personal information. In fact, government agents can now determine the credit card information and addresses of Skype users under suspicion of criminal activity. Aside from allowing government agents backdoor access to American communications, corporations are also working on technologies to allow government agents even easier access to Americans’ communications.
For example, Google has filed a patent for a “Policy Violation Checker,” software which would monitor an individual’s communications as they type them out, whether in an email, an Excel spreadsheet or some other digital document, then alert the individual, and potentially their employer or a government agent, if they type any “problematic phrases” which “present policy violations, have legal implications, or are otherwise troublesome to a company, business, or individual.” The software would work by comparing the text being typed to a pre-defined database of “problematic phrases,” which would presumably be defined on a company-by-company basis.
The emergence of this technology fits in well with Google chairman Eric Schmidt’s view on privacy, which is that “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” Unfortunately, this is not just the attitude of corporate benefactors who stand to profit from creating spy technology and software but government officials as well.
Additionally, police officials throughout the country have become increasingly keen on monitoring social media websites in real time. Rob D’Ovido, a criminal justice professor at Drexel University, has noted that, “The danger of this in light of the tragedy in Boston is that law enforcement is being so risk-averse they are in danger of crossing that line and going after what courts would ultimately deem as free speech.”
For example, Cameron Dambrosio, a teenager and self-styled rap artist living in Metheun, Massachusetts, posted a video of one of his original songs on the internet which included references to the White House and the Boston bombing. While the song’s lyrics may well have been crude and ill-advised in the wake of the Boston bombing, police officers exacerbated the situation by arresting Dambrosio and charging him with communicating terrorist threats, a felony charge which could land him in prison for twenty years.
Unfortunately, cases like Dambrosio’s may soon become the norm, as the FBI’s Next Generation Cyber Initiative has announced that its “top legislative priority” this year is to get social media giants like Facebook and Google to comply with requests for access to real-time updates of social media websites. The proposed method of encouraging compliance is legal inquiries and hefty fines leveled at these companies. The Obama administration is expected to support the proposal.
The reality is this:  we no longer live in a free society. Having traded our freedoms for a phantom promise of security, we now find ourselves imprisoned in a virtual cage of cameras, wiretaps and watchful government eyes. All the while, the world around us is no safer than when we started on this journey more than a decade ago. Indeed, it well may be that we are living in a far more dangerous world, not so much because the terrorist threat is any greater but because the government itself has become the greater threat to our freedoms.
WC: 1749
This commentary is also
available at www.rutherford.org.




Edited by william7, 14 May 2013 - 11:54 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: kurzweil, singularity, breakthroughs, biomedicine, dna sequencing, computing, brain, artificial intelligence, robotics

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users