How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?

...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.

zitron just saw the next frontier in culture war grifting and went all in on it

> This is an article that only cites Zitron’s opinions about subjective model quality. You’re tisk-tisking people to be objective about a bunch of words saying that the author’s opinions are better opinions than the guy he’s talking about OP

Oh it's not just the author's opinions. They're the opinions of a bunch of LLMs he checked, too. Much better.

Ad-hoc hypothesizing ("escape hatches") are dangerous but not quite invalid. Eg, they failed to find gravitational waves until they did, and you could have viewed building yet another more sensitive detector as a similar exercise in refining a hypothesis that you keep receiving contrary evidence for. Sometimes you really did just underestimate how difficult your hypothesis was to demonstrate. Maybe Meta will be destroyed in 2027, or whatever.

The problem with conspiracy theories is more that they have a ratchet-like quality where counter evidence reaffirms the theory in your view and you can only ever get more confident. We should have been increasingly skeptical of gravitational waves to some degree as we failed to demonstrate them, even though we didn't abandon the hypothesis and it ultimately prevailed. But if you adopt a wrong idea, and people try to demonstrate that to you, and you take that effort they're putting forward as a sign that you are correct and they must be hiding something from you, it will be very difficult for you to realize your mistake.

So, as long as you are less certain than you were before, I don't think rolling your prediction over into the future is necessarily conspiratorial or a mistake.

So, WinPhone wasnt bad!It just didnt take off because of app availability and therefore, traction.