
Predicting the future isn't for Kurzweil - robg
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2008/12/ray_kurzweil_th.html
======
jimbokun
Here are the original comments:

[http://www.imminst.org/forum/My-Disappointment-at-the-
Future...](http://www.imminst.org/forum/My-Disappointment-at-the-
Future-t17025.html)

I keep finding more predictions that are failed not because of technological
limitations, but because they are technologies that people do not want.

"Keybords still exist but most textual language is created by speaking."

If I had perfect voice recognition set up right now on the computer I'm typing
at, I would still use the keyboard. Copy paste is easier. Easier to hit
"Enter" than say "linebreak" or something. I'm not even sure how much faster I
can speak than I can type. If my office mate was still here, I wouldn't want
to disturb him by speaking content meant for Hacker News (oops, just revealed
that I'm on HN at work!).

I wonder how bemused Kurzweil must be at the amount of time kids spend texting
each other, compared to the amount of time spent actually speaking into their
cell phone.

------
jackchristopher
A list of his predictions and some analysis:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_made_by_Raymond_Kur...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_made_by_Raymond_Kurzweil)

------
pchristensen
A very misleading title. Kurzweil's predictions are just the anecdotes leading
to the main point: "Beware the conjunction fallacy - adding details to make
something more persuasive but also less likely

------
jimbokun
"The typical American will have at least a dozen computers on his body, in the
form of credit cards, rings and brooches. They'll be networked, and they'll
get us through security checkpoints, monitor our vital signs, and provide GPS-
style directions."

As for getting us through security check points, since Kurzweil did not
predict that terrorists would bring down the World Trade Center in 2001, he
also did not predict that the main bottleneck in getting people through
checkpoints would not be credentialing but having people take off their shoes
and carefully inspecting them for...something or other. And checking for bombs
in their shampoo.

Devices for monitoring vital signs just did not happen, far as I know.

As for the rest of the computers on our body, it seems people prefer to have
one broadly capable device for information, computation, entertainment, and
communication, which is the cellphone (with iPhone best exemplifying the ideal
of a single device with a broad range of capabilities). Having to compare and
buy lots of little communication doodads worn on different parts of the body
would just be an irritant (damn, wore the wrong earrings today, the podcast i
wanted to listen to was on the other set and don't feel like waiting for it
download again...)

~~~
raamdev
I agree with most of your points but I'd like to add that people seem to
prefer one broadly capable device because of the nuisances attached to having
multiple devices. If every piece of clothing came with invisible sensors that
monitored our vitals and communicated them to, perhaps, a single hand-held
device that we carry with us, I'm sure people wouldn't mind.

As things get smaller and smaller, it's less about what you're carrying as it
is about the functionality provided. Think Web 2.0. Fifteen years ago,
something like GMail wouldn't make sense because Internet speeds and browsers
were not advanced enough to handle such features, therefore people wouldn't
even think to demand them.

Think Virtualization. Even 10 years ago, laptops were too slow to handle a
whole lot. Now I've replaced two desktops and a laptop with a single MacBook
Pro laptop (Dual Core 2.4ghz, 4GB RAM, 320GB HD) and VMWare running Ubuntu and
Windows XP. I'm no longer thinking hardware, but instead thinking about what I
can do with all that power in one spot.

If the technology existed to put podcasts on earrings and listen to them
clearly, then I'm sure the technology would exist to wirelessly sync all your
earrings so they all contain the same podcasts.

------
jimbokun
"We'll be wearing computerized glasses that let us simultaneously view virtual
images and the world around us."

What about the dorkiness factor? Do non-nerds really want to walk around with
virtual images in front of their face, 24x7?

This exists:

<http://www.4hiddenspycameras.com/eyeglmo.html>

Know anyone who walks around with these? Would you think he was a dork if you
did?

Sometimes, the trouble for technologists trying to predict the future might
not be understanding what's technologically possible, but understanding what
people actually want.

~~~
jodrellblank
This is going to happen. Not yet, because the benefits don't outweigh the
dorkiness (and complexity).

Don't think of it as in the link you posted - the 320x200 camera as seen in
"True Lies", think of it as in Vernor Vinge's Rainbow's End or Stross's
Manfred Max-with-the-silly-spelling.

When it can look like an ordinary pair of glasses (or contacts), when it can
process high resolution video on the fly and overlay onto it, when the
supporting systems aren't a backpack full of hobbyist wire-tangle, when you
can plug it into your iPhone and watch a film on it instead of using one of
those portable DVD players, then they'll start turning up more and more. Like
head-up on-windscreen displays are appearing in high end cars now.

------
justindz
This is a bit off-topic, but I really enjoyed William Gibson's Spook Country
and especially was intrigued with the headsets used to overlay 3D renderings
on locations via a GPS-enabled server. Ray Kurzweil talked about VR visors,
but I think adding GPS massively increases the value of th eidea. I have since
had several bursts of musing on locative art, entertainment and education
(particularly history lessons).

~~~
jodrellblank
One big downside would be the continual sending of your current location to a
central server asking for local data.

Location based services - only when I choose to switch them on for now,
thanks.

