> 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.