Earlier quoted context omitted.
His tendency to handwave rather than retreat to data? What the heck are you talking about? Have you seen how many graphs he puts in his presentations? You think he's a theorist rather than an experimentalist? How can you possibly get that idea with all of his game-changing inventions?
So he gave a tech-talk at Google, around 2008, and yes he had lots of graphs and such but during the Q&A session he kept retreating into generalized ideas rather than data. I recall the question about how he came up with his numbers for machines to hold a consciousness as one such exchange. The impression I certainly got was that his approach is to theorize about something, then design experiments to test out his the…
Ray Kurzweil joins Google
91–100 of 170 posts
Re: Ray Kurzweil joins Google
#92I don't know exactly what Google's motives are here, I suspect it's something less than actually bringing about some of his, let's say, loftier ideas.
Re: Ray Kurzweil joins Google
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just can't see Kurzweil being in the same league as Peter Norvig. Sure, he did some interesting work a long time ago, before he got weird. I can't see this working out well for Google, unless they just want a famous figurehead.
I'm reposting this comment I made a couple of months ago. He's no John McCarthy, but he was a true pioneer in the commercial applications of AI: ================================== I don't think that's a very fair assessment of Kurzweil's role in technology. He was on the ground, getting his hands dirty with the first commercial applications of AI. He made quite a bit of money selling his various companies and technol…
I'm sure he is a smart guy, but I think we have put him on a pedestal when he probably is not as remarkable as we want him to be.
Re: Ray Kurzweil joins Google
#94Thanks in part to the popularity of his books, movie, and speeches, Kurzweil now knows pretty much every AI researcher in the planet, and we can safely assume he's aware of even very obscure research projects in the field, both inside and outside academia. Joining Google gives him ready access to data sets of almost unimaginable size, as well as unparalleled infrastructure and skills for handling such large data sets…
I just can't see Kurzweil being in the same league as Peter Norvig. Sure, he did some interesting work a long time ago, before he got weird. I can't see this working out well for Google, unless they just want a famous figurehead.
Re: Ray Kurzweil joins Google
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just can't see Kurzweil being in the same league as Peter Norvig. Sure, he did some interesting work a long time ago, before he got weird. I can't see this working out well for Google, unless they just want a famous figurehead.
>Sure, he did some interesting work a long time ago, before he got weird. He was weird then too. That's why he did such interesting work. His work, combined with a lack of fame at that time, just kept the weird from showing through. I suspect that genius is made up almost, but not quite, entirely of crazy.
Re: Ray Kurzweil joins Google
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just can't see Kurzweil being in the same league as Peter Norvig. Sure, he did some interesting work a long time ago, before he got weird. I can't see this working out well for Google, unless they just want a famous figurehead.
A lot of visionaries are misunderstood because they can "see" things the others can't at the time, and it doesn't make sense to them, which is why they think they are "weird" or "crazy". From that point of view, Richard Stallman was also a visionary, even if it took 2-3 decades before his visions of states or companies putting backdoors in your proprietary software became true.
Re: Ray Kurzweil joins Google
#97Thanks in part to the popularity of his books, movie, and speeches, Kurzweil now knows pretty much every AI researcher in the planet, and we can safely assume he's aware of even very obscure research projects in the field, both inside and outside academia. Joining Google gives him ready access to data sets of almost unimaginable size, as well as unparalleled infrastructure and skills for handling such large data sets…
Re: Ray Kurzweil joins Google
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm reposting this comment I made a couple of months ago. He's no John McCarthy, but he was a true pioneer in the commercial applications of AI: ================================== I don't think that's a very fair assessment of Kurzweil's role in technology. He was on the ground, getting his hands dirty with the first commercial applications of AI. He made quite a bit of money selling his various companies and technol…
Not to be a downer, but text-to-speech, speech recognition, music synthesis, and so forth are all fairly obvious applications of computer science that anyone could have pioneered without being a genius. Likewise, predicting self-driving cars is nothing science fiction has not already done. I'm sure he is a smart guy, but I think we have put him on a pedestal when he probably is not as remarkable as we want him to be.
I find it instructive to occassionally go to Youtube and load up commericals for Windows 95, 3.1, the first Mac, etc., or even to dust off and boot up an old computer I haven't touched for decades. Not to get too pretentious, but it's a bit like Proust writing about memories of his childhood coming flooding back to him just from the smell of a cake he ate as a child.
When you really make a concerted effort to remember just how primitive previous generations of computing were, I think it puts Kurzweil's predictions and accomplishments in a much more impressive context.
This was the state of the art PC back when Ray was forming his first companies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAhp_LzvSWk
I posted some other thoughts about Ray's track record awhile back:
==========================================
I read his predictions for 2009 only a couple of years before they were supposed to come about (which he wrote in the late 90s), and many seemed kind of far fetched - and then all of a sudden the iPhone, iPad, Google self-driving car, Siri, Google Glass, and Watson come out, and he's pretty much batting a thousand.
Some of those predictions were a year or two late, in 2010 or 2011, but do a couple of years really matter in the grand scheme of things?
Predicting that self-driving cars would occur in ten years in the late 90s is pretty extraordinary, especially if you go to youtube and load up a commercial for Windows 98 and get a flashback of how primitive the tech environment actually was back then.
Kurzweil seems to always get technological capabilities right. Where he sometimes falls flat is in technological adoption - how actual consumers are willing to interact with technology, especially where bureaucracies are involved- see his predictions on the adoption of elearning in the classroom, or using speech recognition as an interface in an office environment.
Even if a few of his more outlandish predictions like immortality are a few decades - or even generations - off, I think the road map of technological progress he outlines seems pretty inevitable, yet still awe inspiring.
Re: Ray Kurzweil joins Google
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm reposting this comment I made a couple of months ago. He's no John McCarthy, but he was a true pioneer in the commercial applications of AI: ================================== I don't think that's a very fair assessment of Kurzweil's role in technology. He was on the ground, getting his hands dirty with the first commercial applications of AI. He made quite a bit of money selling his various companies and technol…
Not to be a downer, but text-to-speech, speech recognition, music synthesis, and so forth are all fairly obvious applications of computer science that anyone could have pioneered without being a genius. Likewise, predicting self-driving cars is nothing science fiction has not already done. I'm sure he is a smart guy, but I think we have put him on a pedestal when he probably is not as remarkable as we want him to be.
What does "predicting" a thing has with actually IMPLEMENTING it? Here, I predict "1000 days runtime per charge laptop batteries". Should I get a patent for this "prediction"?
No, text-to-speech, speech recognition and synthesis are not "fairly obvious applications of computer science that anyone could have pioneered". And even if it was so, to be involved in the pioneering of ALL three takes some kind of genius.
Not only that, but all three fields are quite open today, and far from complete. Speech recognition in particular is extremely limited even today.
Plus, you'd be surprised how many "anyones" scientists failed to pioneer such (or even more) "obvious applications". Heck, the Incas didn't even have wheels.
(That said, I don't consider Kurzweill's current ideas re: Singularity and "immortality" impressive. He sounds more like the archetypical rich guy (from the Pharaohs to Howard Hughes) trying to cheat death (which is a valid pursuit, I guess) than a scientist).
Re: Ray Kurzweil joins Google
#100It's as if you took a lot of very good food and some dog excrement and blended it all up so that you can't possibly figure out what's good or bad. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/douglas-r-hof... I see what DRF means, and The Singularity is Near did seem mostly a perfunctory literature review, with important issues not discussed, just skimmed over. (For example, he doesn't discussed the causes of accel…
>For example, he doesn't discussed the causes of accelerating returns, doesn't support the causes with data, only the effects. I agree with this. It seems to be a huge hole in the entire discussion. It's not enough to cite historical data, and assert that exponential growth will continue indefinitely. I could speculate a bit about some explanations. But I'm curious if there are any good discussions out there, does an…