Sure, he talks a lot. He makes grand statements. Is there any reason to take him seriously in this context?
He sure seems to believe, and to want to believe. But actual evidence that he's going to be right any time soon? That seems to be missing.
Sure, he talks a lot. He makes grand statements. Is there any reason to take him seriously in this context?
He sure seems to believe, and to want to believe. But actual evidence that he's going to be right any time soon? That seems to be missing.
So, how "near" was the singularity in 2005? How accurate was Kurzweil?
And yes, there's evidence of incredible machine learning discoveries all around us. You'd have to be willfully blind not to see those. AlphaZero in Go & Chess, the protein folding miracles of Deepmind, all the amazing work being done today. The field is racing ahead. Human minds are good at seeing linear progression. Our brains aren't particularly good at exponential growth, which is what is happening in this field.
As far as I can tell for decades he's been consistently more right than his critics and often on issues that are a lot harder to get right than simple coin tosses.
As the parent poster said, there is zero reason to take him seriously.
the first CCD flat-bed scanner
first omni-font optical character recognition
the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind
the first text-to-speech synthesizer
the first music synthesizer capable of recreating a grand piano
But what has he invented after he started writing about the singularity?
Because it's impossible that I could be familiar with his work and still think that he's full of it? (At least on AI and the Singularity.) That sounds like you've had a bit too much Kurzweil Koolaid...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10%25_Solution_for_a_Healt...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage:_Live_Long_En...