Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_jecadqw wrote

Reply to comment by ersatzgiraffe in immortality: Humans will attain immortality with the help of 'nanobots' by 2030, claims former Google scientist by Vailhem

  • He doesn’t work at Google anymore

  • He's 75 years old best-selling author

  • He has made nearly 150 predictions in the last decades and roughly 86% of them became true, becoming an institution of futurology.

  • You didn't read the article.

> there are people [...] that don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about, perhaps.

Exactly. Exactly.

−4

Mutex70 t1_jecplp3 wrote

And how was that 86% number determined? Oh right, that was his own interpretation of how many predictions he had gotten right.

The guy is like a tech version of a psychic. He makes money by promising unrealistic bullshit without a shred of evidence.

7

VdomanFla t1_jefqr3m wrote

I predict that the comment before yours will be down-voted. There, I'm off on my journey as a prognosticator.

2

[deleted] t1_jedth51 wrote

He was fact checked externally. Listen, it's not that difficult: In 1995 he says "In 2010 1000$ computers will have as much storage as the human brain" and he turns out to be right. Easy.

0

DevAway22314 t1_jef1o8z wrote

You were fact checked externally. By me. The result was:

False

All the sources I looked at cited the storage capacity of the human brain in the petabyte range, with all sources putting it at >10TB, which is many times the storage capacity of a 2010 computer for $1000

2.5 petabytes: https://www.medanta.org/patient-education-blog/what-is-the-memory-capacity-of-a-human-brain/

10-100 TB: https://aiimpacts.org/information-storage-in-the-brain/

>1 petabyte: https://www.salk.edu/news-release/memory-capacity-of-brain-is-10-times-more-than-previously-thought/

The inaccuracy aside, it's a ridiculous claim anyway. There is no good way to compare the two, and the fact the range of estimates varies by >200x should say a lot about it

2

ersatzgiraffe t1_jecdq6c wrote

Commentary on the over reliance of “expert at google says” as a means of establishing credibility, especially since this guy doesn’t even work there anymore as you noted. “Experts at Google” in particular have been wrong about a billion things recently and it’s reflected in their patriarchal stance on AI tools, the fact that it’s become a parasitic ad company and the fact that it can’t compete with ChatGPT and ChatGPT-like services because no one who works there anymore is either capable of or allowed to actually innovate unless it involves dicking with the SEO algorithm to continue to toxify the internet with shit spam nonsense content instead of actual information made by people.

0