Hacker News Reader

First of all thanks for actually replying with a full list.

> Claiming it's a fail for being 1 second late is not a rational position and not at all in the spirit the predictions were made.

I would keep to the level of precision the predictor themselves claimed. If the predictor said an event would occur at “23:59:59 UTC” it would be fair to criticize them for being a second late. If the predictor claimed an event would occur on a day, fair to criticize them for being a day late, and so on for all units of time.

If a predictor says an event will occur in 2019 but it occurs in 2020, yes that is incorrect, the predictor could have hedged by a year if they wanted to. Why is it the observer’s job to do the hedging rather than the predictor’s job?

> Someone says computers will be in everything. You can say "there's no computer's in fruit!, FAIL!"

While I disagree about the timing, I agree slightly that there is some nuance regarding phrases like “everything”, “everywhere”, “popular” and so on.

However there is a way out for the predictor: use a more specific phrase like “used by over 20% of the US population” instead of “popular”.

Once again (and this applies to the entire page of comments not just yours): why is it the observer’s job to do the hedging rather than the predictor?

On to the specific predictions…

> 2009 * Most books will be read on screens rather than paper. The charitable interpretation is that most reading happens on screens, not paper. This is true today.

I disagree with the charitable interpretation, there has been plenty of writing outside of books for decades and a person like Kurzweil getting their books published would know that. If the prediction says “books” instead of “writing” it should be judged for that choice.

> * Intelligent roads and driverless cars will be in use, mostly on highways. False in 2009, False in 2026 but directionally true.

Even if the prediction were true in 2026, 15 years is a long time to be off. A person who decided not to get a driving license thinking that driverless cars are right around the corner would be disappointed. That’s a silly way to behave mainly because when making a decision like that, people have other sources to turn to than Kurzweil.

And where are the “intelligent roads”?

> * Computers can recognize their owner's face from a picture or video.

> Face ID shipped in 2017. Is that to far off?

Compared to 2009? Yeah that’s absolutely too far.

I look at it like this. I read the book when he made the predictions. Many of them came true. So those predictions were useful to me.

It sounds like for you, the fact that they weren't perfect made them worthless and he's someone who's opinions you should ignore.

I see enough of his predictions as close enough that I think he was worth listening to. He predicted computers would equal the human brain by 2029. The majority of AI researchers now believe it will be even sooner. When he made the prediction, most people thought he was far far far off or maybe even talking science fiction. Yet here we are.

His biggest point was expoential progress very common in many domains. Whatever the state of something is, if it's improving expoentially it will seem like it's not close to being there yet, a short time before it's actually there. A lake that takes 30 days to fill and gets filled double the previous amount every day seems empty for 28 days, at day 28 it's 1/4th full so still looks mostly empty. At day 29 it's 1/2 full. I personally see is exponetial preductions as mostly true.

I think that will be true of self driving cars. They are later than predicted but they exist and are expanding quickly. Waymo is in 14 cities. How many times do they and their competetors have to double before they're ubiquitous? That idea was introduced to me by Kurzweil.

Others have pointed out, once robots can build things they'll be used to build robot factories and they'll explode in proliferation. I don't think Kurzweil made that prediction but I think his books and presentations on exponential growth influenced others to see it in more things.

Let me add further, I think there is value in separating people like Kurzweil (who I think is basically correct) and people like Paul R. Ehrlich who wrote "The Population Bomb" and who's predictions have almost entirely been falsified completely. They weren't even in the correct direction.

The same is true for Ed Zitron. He's not been even directionally correct.

...continued from above (part 3)...

* 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.

False

* Retinal and neural implants also exist, but are in limited use because they are less useful.

True. They do exist.

* 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.

False but again, you can get your favorite LLM to read the screen to you today. So directionally true?

* People with spinal cord injuries can walk and climb steps using computer-controlled nerve stimulation and exoskeletal robotic walkers.

False? Though I think you can find examples of this research demonstrated

* 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).

False

* Language translating machines are of much higher quality, and are routinely used in conversations.

A few years late but arguably true, go look at all the tourists getting around using Google Lens and built in translation.

* Effective language technologies (natural language processing, speech recognition, speech synthesis) exist

True, but a few years late?

* Access to the Internet is completely wireless and provided by wearable or implanted computers.

Again, the words are in absolutes "completely" but is mostly true. Most people wear a smartphone and it's wireless

* People are able to wirelessly access the Internet at all times from almost anywhere

Same as above

* 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.

True, this exists and existed in 2019. Not common.

* 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.

False, it has not matured.

* Worldwide economic growth has continued. There has not been a global economic collapse.

True

* The vast majority of business interactions occur between humans and simulated retailers, or between a human's virtual personal assistant and a simulated retailer.

False, but it's happening a few years late

* Household robots are ubiquitous and reliable.

False, though Roomba

* 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.

False, but arguably directionally true. My 2021 Tesla (2 years late) has saved me from accidents when it took control. I've lived in SF and LA where Waymo is common. But, no, it's not most

* Most roads now have automated driving systems—networks of monitoring and communication devices that allow computer-controlled automobiles to safely navigate.

False

* Prototype personal flying vehicles using microflaps exist. They are also primarily computer-controlled.

True? Drones (computer controlled) that can carry humans exist and existed in 2019. They are not common. Maybe you're stuck on the world microflaps

> 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.

True in 2023-2024 so just a few years ogg?

* 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.

Not sure, plenty of experts claim current LLMs have passed and plenty claim they haven't. So at most this was a few years off

* Human-robot relationships begin as simulated personalities become more convincing.

False. No human robots yet

* Interaction with virtual personalities becomes a primary interface

False

* 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.

There's a lot mixed up in this one. Lots of work places and countries have tons of surveillance and for many personal privacy is a major issue.

* The basic needs of the underclass are met. (Not specified if this pertains only to the developed world or to all countries)

False?

* Virtual artists—creative computers capable of making their own art and music—emerge in all fields of the arts.

Arguably just a few years late.

...continued from above (part 2) ...

2019

* 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).

False (though if we're taking FP4 it's only 1 order of magnitude off9

* The summed computational powers of all computers is comparable to the total brainpower of the human race.

False

* Computers are embedded everywhere in the environment (inside of furniture, jewelry, walls, clothing, etc.).

The charitable interpretation is this true. There are plenty of all of those things. Jewelry (apple watch, Oura ring, Walls = LED lighting systems, furniture = message chairs with apps)

* 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.

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.

False, though all of that has been demonstrated

* 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.

Charitable version is Siri, Alexa. And arguably it's clear it will happen with LLMs so not far off.

* Most business transactions or information inquiries involve dealing with a simulated person.

False in 2019 but seems directionally true in 2026. So many businesses use AI chat and or AI customer service. Even the DMV is now AI.

* 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.

True? Most people own a phone and a smart TV or a phone and tablet, or a phone and watch or a phone and video game system.

* Cables connecting computers and peripherals have almost completely disappeared.

Arguably false, otherwise I wouldn't have so many cables.

* Rotating computer hard drives are no longer used.

Directionally true. The average person has a phone, tablet, PC, TV, PS5, Switch, with SSD, not rotating HD. Hard drives are still common in data centers and geek media hubs

* Three-dimensional nanotube lattices are the dominant computing substrate.

False

* Massively parallel neural nets and genetic algorithms are in wide use.

True in 2026, No idea if it was true behind the scenes in 2019.

* 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.

No idea

* Pinhead-sized cameras are everywhere.

False, but if you want to be charitable, cameras everywhere (Amazon Ring, Google Nest, etc...) are everywhere.

* 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.

No idea. It's true it's not yet made it into the mainstream. But there are many "nano-materials"

* 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.

Arguably true. The majority of phones have a very high resolution display and it's where most data is viewed. The 2nd part is false.

* Computers have made paper books and documents almost completely obsolete.

Again, charitably, the majority of text and documents are not digital.

* 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.

False, maybe directionally true. I know lots of people and kids that LLMs, not humans to learn things.

* Students still learn together and socialize, though this is often done remotely via computers.

True. Tons of children socialize remotely. They also learned remotely (COVID)

* All students have access to computers.

True? Does this fail on the word "all" or does it pass because it's mostly true.

* Most human workers spend the majority of their time acquiring new skills and knowledge.

False