Ray Kurzweil’s Mind-Boggling Predictions for the Next 25 Years

495,181 64 Loading

In my new book BOLD, one of the interviews that I’m most excited about is with my good friend Ray Kurzweil.

Bill Gates calls Ray, “the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence.” Ray is also amazing at predicting a lot more beyond just AI.

This post looks at his very incredible predictions for the next 20+ years.

Ray Kurzweil.

Ray Kurzweil.

So who is Ray Kurzweil?

He has received 20 honorary doctorates, has been awarded honors from three U.S. presidents, and has authored 7 books (5 of which have been national bestsellers).

He is the principal inventor of many technologies ranging from the first CCD flatbed scanner to the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind. He is also the chancellor and co-founder of Singularity University, and the guy tagged by Larry Page to direct artificial intelligence development at Google.

In short, Ray’s pretty smart… and his predictions are amazing, mind-boggling, and important reminders that we are living in the most exciting time in human history.

But, first let’s look back at some of the predictions Ray got right.

Predictions Ray has gotten right over the last 25 years

In 1990 (twenty-five years ago), he predicted…

…that a computer would defeat a world chess champion by 1998. Then in 1997, IBM’s Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov.

… that PCs would be capable of answering queries by accessing information wirelessly via the Internet by 2010. He was right, to say the least.

… that by the early 2000s, exoskeletal limbs would let the disabled walk. Companies like Ekso Bionics and others now have technology that does just this, and much more.

In 1999, he predicted…

… that people would be able talk to their computer to give commands by 2009. While still in the early days in 2009, natural language interfaces like Apple’s Siri and Google Now have come a long way. I rarely use my keyboard anymore; instead I dictate texts and emails.

… that computer displays would be built into eyeglasses for augmented reality by 2009. Labs and teams were building head mounted displays well before 2009, but Google started experimenting with Google Glass prototypes in 2011. Now, we are seeing an explosion of augmented and virtual reality solutions and HMDs. Microsoft just released the Hololens, and Magic Leap is working on some amazing technology, to name two.

In 2005, he predicted…

… that by the 2010s, virtual solutions would be able to do real-time language translation in which words spoken in a foreign language would be translated into text that would appear as subtitles to a user wearing the glasses. Well, Microsoft (via Skype Translate), Google (Translate), and others have done this and beyond. One app called Word Lens actually uses your camera to find and translate text imagery in real time.

Ray’s predictions for the next 25 years

The above represent only a few of the predictions Ray has made.

While he hasn’t been precisely right, to the exact year, his track record is stunningly good.

Here are some of my favorite of Ray’s predictions for the next 25+ years.

If you are an entrepreneur, you need to be thinking about these. Specifically, how are you going to capitalize on them when they happen? How will they affect your business?

By the late 2010s, glasses will beam images directly onto the retina. Ten terabytes of computing power (roughly the same as the human brain) will cost about $1,000.

By the 2020s, most diseases will go away as nanobots become smarter than current medical technology. Normal human eating can be replaced by nanosystems. The Turing test begins to be passable. Self-driving cars begin to take over the roads, and people won’t be allowed to drive on highways.

By the 2030s, virtual reality will begin to feel 100% real. We will be able to upload our mind/consciousness by the end of the decade.

By the 2040s, non-biological intelligence will be a billion times more capable than biological intelligence (a.k.a. us). Nanotech foglets will be able to make food out of thin air and create any object in physical world at a whim.

By 2045, we will multiply our intelligence a billionfold by linking wirelessly from our neocortex to a synthetic neocortex in the cloud.

I want to make an important point.

It’s not about the predictions.

It’s about what the predictions represent.

Ray’s predictions are a byproduct of his (and my) understanding of the power of Moore’s Law, more specifically Ray’s “Law of Accelerating Returns” and of exponential technologies.

These technologies follow an exponential growth curve based on the principle that the computing power that enables them doubles every two years.


As humans, we are biased to think linearly.

As entrepreneurs, we need to think exponentially.

I often talk about the 6D’s of exponential thinking

Most of us can’t see the things Ray sees because the initial growth stages of exponential, DIGITIZED technologies are DECEPTIVE.

Before we know it, they are DISRUPTIVE—just look at the massive companies that have been disrupted by technological advances in AI, virtual reality, robotics, internet technology, mobile phones, OCR, translation software, and voice control technology.

Each of these technologies DEMATERIALIZED, DEMONETIZED, and DEMOCRATIZED access to services and products that used to be linear and non-scalable.

Now, these technologies power multibillion-dollar companies and affect billions of lives.

Image Credit: Shutterstock.com; Singularity University; Ray Kurzweil and Kurzweil Technologies, Inc./Wikimedia Commons

Peter Diamandis

Dr. Peter Diamandis was recently named by Fortune Magazine as one of the World’s 50 Greatest Leaders.

He is the founder and executive chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation which leads the world in designing and operating large-scale incentive competitions.

He is also the co-founder and executive chairman of Singularity University, a graduate-level Silicon Valley institution that counsels the world’s leaders on exponentially growing technologies.

Diamandis is also the co-founder and vice-chairman of Human Longevity Inc. (HLI), a genomics and cell therapy-based company focused on extending the healthy human lifespan.

In the field of commercial space, Diamandis is co-founder and co-chairman of Planetary Resources, a company designing spacecraft to enable the detection and prospecting of asteroids for fuels and precious materials.He is the also co-founder of Space Adventures and Zero Gravity Corporation.

Diamandis is a New York Times bestselling author of two books: Abundance – The Future Is Better Than You Think and BOLD – How to Go Big, Create Wealth and Impact the World.

He earned degrees in Molecular Genetics and Aerospace Engineering from MIT, and holds an M.D. from Harvard Medical School.

His motto is, “The best way to predict the future is to create it yourself.”

Discussion — 64 Responses

  • Matthew Lally January 26, 2015 on 9:43 am

    Peter, are you releasing BOLD on audiobook?

  • Khannea Suntzu January 26, 2015 on 10:19 am

    Ray is looking great and he sounds more inspiring than he did in the past.

  • Germen Roding January 26, 2015 on 10:34 am

    Moore’s Law will hit the atomic boundary wall around 2020. When no work-around is found for this, for instance by implementing quantum computing, 3D chips or massive multiple processing, e.g. by memristor-based computing architectures, I think Moore’s Law will come to a stall, and, with it, mr Kurzweil’s predictions. The good news is that, while traditional computer architecture as we know it probably has to give way, we are still very far from the theoretical maximum computing power of matter. There are ample ways to circumvent the atomic wall, but the technological challenge will be daunting.

    • Doug Brown Germen Roding January 28, 2015 on 3:40 am

      Good point. Is this factored in? If not why is it ignored?

      • PatrikD Doug Brown January 28, 2015 on 4:15 am

        Because for decades, people have been coming up with arguments why Moore’s law is about to break any minute now. Many now ignore such predictions on the blind faith that the computer industry will surely come up with some way around these barriers, because they’ve always found a way around barriers before.

        Of course, that doesn’t make it any less based on blind faith…

        • Sean Thoennes PatrikD February 7, 2015 on 9:11 pm

          What’s being left out of these analyses is the impact an exponentially growing online population has on forwarding the knowledge and overcoming obstacles through open-sourcing. As you correctly point out, Germen, we are far from the theoretical maximum, and the idea of billions more minds coming online by 2020 to potentially contribute to that conversation gives me confidence that we will yet again see Moore’s Law weather another prediction of its demise.

          • Ralphoo Sean Thoennes April 1, 2016 on 8:42 pm

            The halving effect of Moore’s law on chip size may or may not end within the next few decades, but the continued doubling of our overall technological capabilities may already be less dependent on that one aspect of our capabilities. At this point we already have enough computing power to fuel greatly increased capabilities in related spheres for a long time. For example, advances in 3D printing do not currently depend so much on more computer power as on the development of 3D printer hardware, 3D printer software and especially advances in materials science.

    • David Stonier-Gibson Germen Roding January 30, 2015 on 6:08 pm

      @Germen, if your read Ray’s book “How to Create a Mind”, you will see data that shows Moore’s law to only be part of a continuum of exponential expansion of computational power that extends back hundreds of years (in fact, that’s what the graph above shows!). Moore’s law applies to semiconductor technology from ~1960 until now. But before that there were other computing technologies, back to the abacus and beyond.

      There is no reasonable reason to doubt that the same equation will hold into the future, even if semiconductor technology stalls (mind you, the chip guys have a few tricks up their sleeves still!).

      I strongly recommend that book to anyone interested in the architecture of the brain. I was gobsmacked to learn how much is actually known about how the brain works. Siri and Google Now actually leverage that knowledge. I am quite convinced that by about 2030 (I *may* just be around to see this …) artificial intelligences will be on a par with humans. I therefore propose that AI should be measured on a logarithmic scale where human parity is 0iU and each doubling adds 3 (like decibels).

      That means by 2030 we will have 0iU machines. From the article, by 2040 my grandchildren will have 180iU computer (1 billion human intelligences).

      Will humans be smart enough to harness and control that?

      • Germen Roding David Stonier-Gibson February 3, 2015 on 1:26 am

        I did read this book by Mr Kurzweil. I personally believe it is brilliant and have warmly recommended it to one friend. Indeed, I agree with it to a large extent. His arguments for a modular brain with a relatively simple, yet expandable architecture are very convincing and I personally believe he is right. Mind, however, that we need raw processing power rather than human mind emulation. I believe that the easiest way to reach that level, is to have a plethora of simple processors, and an extensive spatial support structure for internal communication and waste heat elimination. We probably can hold up Moore’s law, piossible even surpass it, but we need to prepare now for a post-Turing/von Neumann computer architecture, including the necessary software ecosystem, so we make a smooth transition.

      • Ralphoo David Stonier-Gibson April 1, 2016 on 8:48 pm

        Clearly, we will be smart enough only with the help of the new artificially intelligent computers. That is why I think the most serious, consequential AI is likely to operate as a human/computer cooperation rather than a pure machine world. Rather than buying one or more AIs to run my life, I would be much more interested in having a brain-implanted connection to a fantastically versatile computer assistant.

    • Mark Rose Germen Roding June 1, 2015 on 4:31 pm

      Correction: Moore’s Law will hit the atomic boundary wall around 2020 *using current technologies*. Moore’s law has always “found a way”.

    • Ben Hashemi Germen Roding June 6, 2015 on 11:21 am

      Moore’s Law is just an estimate to ease the understanding of growth in electronics..
      When we do hit such a thing as singularity or a way to harvest energy more efficiently human will change their course and we might even have a total shift of consciousness to a more holistic one.
      and at this point we will have way more advancements that we have ever had since useless and repetitive jobs would be eliminated and we will solely focus on human advancement.

    • Andrew Angle Germen Roding July 10, 2015 on 6:23 am

      A noticeable step in computing power under developed is the leap from electronics to photonics. The theoretical difference between using photos instead of old fashioned electrons for switching is processors millions of times faster than electron based switching, and should require a less energy input wasted on heat. If/when photoic processors arrive, we will could see a very sudden upward kink in the Moore’s Law curve.

    • genidma Germen Roding August 10, 2015 on 12:11 am

      1. Nano-scale vacuum tubes may make a comeback.

      2. Tech that makes use of scanning tunnelling microscopy in order to reposition atoms is cool. Although, as of last year, it was difficult to position the atoms even with the usage of such a construct and they were doing this by hand or operating the machinery required to reposition the atoms by hand. Machine vision/learning could help.

      3. Neurosynaptic chips are interesting and use way less energy compared to silicon based transistors.

      The requirement is still the same, cram more transistors but to do it in a way so that the design of the (physical) architecture allows heat to be dissipated in an efficient manner.

      A lot of innovations can be had in this space.

    • mikewolf1975 Germen Roding December 17, 2015 on 10:37 am

      Moore’s Law will hit a wall. Either new chip technology or quantum computing will take over and surpass Moore’s law, which was created by someone who did not predict any of what Mr. Kurzweil has predicted.

      Saying Moore’s Law will stall and prevent any further technological evolution is absurd.

    • Justin Ian Spencer Germen Roding January 2, 2016 on 4:08 pm

      I believe there are plans to use plant cells in chips once silicon chips get too small.

    • Wayne Caswell Germen Roding August 7, 2016 on 6:12 am

      See http://mhealthtalk.com/the-end-of-moores-law-dont-bet-on-it/ and think not just of quantum and organic computers but of massively parallel computing and the blending of brain and Internet capacity. (Info + Bio + Nano + Neuro)

      Just as brains evolve with ever-more synapse connections between neurons, computing may evolve exponentially with more connections between each processor, clusters of processors, and computing systems. And each processor will eventually be the size of a single cell, implanted and connected to neurons, providing an efficient brain-computer interface and enabling a brain-brain interface that supports the idea of shared consciousness. Now consider that each of the 100 billion neurons in the human brain has the “potential” of being connected.

      No, I don’t see a limitation to Moore’s Law. The limiting factor I see is humanity and the stupid mistakes we make that could wipe our our species and others. Politicians, for example, are already unable to keep up with the accelerating pace of tech innovation and the need to evolve public policy.

  • Rafael Pinto January 26, 2015 on 10:36 am

    You might want to fix this: “Ten terabytes of computing power”. You probably meant teraflops.

    • Jussi Väinölä Rafael Pinto January 26, 2015 on 10:47 am

      No, he meant terabytes. But he should’ve said “computer memory” instead.

      • Rafael Pinto Jussi Väinölä June 4, 2015 on 3:35 pm

        No, he is clearly talking about computing power, as shown in the image. Non-volatile memory will probably reach the same mark about the same time, but the text is not about it.

        • Steve Young Rafael Pinto June 6, 2015 on 10:38 pm

          Actually, he meant computer memory, “10^13 bits (=10 TB) of computer memory—roughly the equivalent of the memory space in a single human brain—will cost $1000.” The date Kurzweil set for this was 2018.

          • Rafael Pinto Steve Young June 14, 2015 on 10:42 am

            The article is wrong either way, and also misleading due to the used image. Also, non-volatile computer memory capacity is quite irrelevant to the other predicted events. This would be way more relevant to mention:
            “Early 2020’s: 10^16 calculations per second—roughly the equivalent of one human brain—will cost $1,000.”

  • royf January 26, 2015 on 11:04 am

    Are there any predictions he got wrong?
    This seems one-sided to the point of a cult of personality.

    • Giancarlo Aguirre royf January 26, 2015 on 11:19 am

      Yes, he got wrong some things, he even wrote a book about the things he got wrong in general, but even thought he got right most of his predictions.

    • horseshoe7 royf January 27, 2015 on 8:13 am


    • PatrikD royf January 27, 2015 on 11:21 am

      Yes, he’s gotten plenty of things wrong. He is also extremely lenient in evaluating his own success rate and great at self-promotion.

      One thing that particularly struck me about this set of predictions is (1) how fuzzy some of the near-term ones are (note that “by the 2020’s” could mean in 5 years or in 15 years – that’s a 3-fold margin in the timing of what should be some of his easiest predictions!), and (2) how much of a blind spot he has when it comes to biology.

      Nanotech? Give me a break. Yes, we’ll have nantotech and nanobots, but it will be called biotech and programmable cells. And even with those technologies becoming predominant, there is no flying fart in hell that “most diseases will go away” by the 2020’s. Predicting the end of disease easily predates predicting the end of Moore’s Law and is just as misguided.

      Yes, I see major advances ahead in fighting many diseases. But those advances will be due to 21st century biotechnology and synthetic biology. Think gene drives, genome editing, recombinant vaccines, metabolic engineering of drug biosynthesis, biosensor genetic circuitry, DNA origami, and more – there’s your “nanotech”!

      • dsteiny PatrikD January 27, 2015 on 12:30 pm

        I agree with you. A thing that strikes me as naive about these types of predictions is the stuff about “mind” and “consciousness.” For all the all the futuristic talk he has an almost childish view of them. Humans encode experience as narrative, stories that have cause and effect. We do this in milliseconds and there is no reason that two people that observe the same thing will see the same cause because it is just something our brain is doing and has not particular correlation to the physical world. That is what science is about, overcoming this and other biases. When we see someone act we immediately assume there is a cause for that action and a location that drives it. That is what minds are. They are not causes, they are explanations. At one level we “know” that others are explaining the world around us in a similar way to us so we can communicate but there is no place that is causing us to act, no soul that can be uploaded into a computer. When we act it is a consequence of our mood, our immediate social environment, our physical environment and many things that shift from instant to instant but are part of the “cause.” There is nothing to upload, it makes no sense.

        Fortune tellers, astrologers and so on make predictions that are vague enough that they could be interpreted as coming true if something is close enough. They also count on people forgetting the failed predictions. There are still people who cite Nostradamus and a huge percentage of people take various events as “proof” that the “predictions” in Revelations are coming true. Google has just abandoned “Google Glass,” so it is hard to argue that they are “here.” Translations by Google Translate are usually understandable but, come on, they are not even close to real examples of the languages they are translating to.

      • Toby LaPenn PatrikD January 29, 2015 on 11:30 am

        Nanotech is a very general term, and biotech and programmable cells would easily fall under the umbrella term NanoTech.
        One of the biggest problems with disease is delivery. We can kill most virii when we can reach it. We can kill pretty much all bacteria, when we can reach it.
        However, reaching things inside the human body usually means hitting a critical mass of when it comes to chemical injection.
        That critical mass usually means you kill the body in addition to killing the disease.
        When you solve the problem of delivery, you end up curing a lot more diseases.
        We’ve already seen a new technology which solves a delivery problem, replacing Syringes as the primary means for delivering inoculations. That technology uses the same drugs as the classic syringe, but makes the drugs significantly more effective, easier to store, and safer to deliver.

        The more we advance delivery technology, the faster we will be able to destroy diseases.
        Most diseases cured in the 2020s? Sounds completely reasonable to me.

    • Ryan Russon royf January 29, 2015 on 2:11 pm

      Sure, there’s plenty he got wrong, but on the other hand, I can’t think of many people who got more right. Just because a golf pro doesn’t hit a hole-in-one half the time doesn’t make the feat any less impressive.

    • Wayne Caswell royf August 7, 2016 on 6:24 am

      “I think there’s a world market for about five computers.” (Thomas J. Watson Jr., IBM Chairman, 1943.

      That’s just one of my favorite False Predictions at http://mhealthtalk.com/cazitech/home/favorite-quotes/.

  • wjfox January 26, 2015 on 11:35 am

    That graph is 17 years out of date. The red dots end at 1998. Anyone have a more up to date trend line?

    • Guilherme wjfox January 26, 2015 on 12:15 pm

      I like the top500 ranking, it is not the per $1,000 figure, but shows a similar pattern.


    • bkokot wjfox January 28, 2015 on 3:25 pm


      The above link has 9 data points since 1998 with the most recent being in January of 2015.

      The Celeron G1830 R9 295×2 System tested out at 11.5 TFLOPS (or just exceeding 10^13 on the chart) for a cost of $902.57 USD built with commercially available parts. At a quick glance, this is pretty well in line with the curve displayed.

      Moore’s Law is popular enough that if there were significant variation (above or below) the predicted curve, it would be big news and most people concerned with technology would hear about it in short order.

      Even given all of the above, comparing brain power or intelligence of animals or humans strictly in terms of FLOPS seems a bit misguided. For that I think a more accurate measure would be the development of AI or deep learning applications. No matter how many calculations can be made, if the system doesn’t understand the importance of the calculations, then it cannot be compared to human intellect. It will be interesting to see if those areas develop quickly enough to keep pace with the intersections on the chart as well.

      • Brent Simpson bkokot December 25, 2015 on 4:53 pm

        I think Kurzweil makes this distinction. That the hardware will be in important ways equivalent to the human brain around 2020 but it won’the be until 2029 that the software will be human-level… hence the ability to pass the Turing test or some more strict exemplar for general intelligence won’the happen until that time (most likely).

  • DSM January 26, 2015 on 12:32 pm
  • Jes Antler January 26, 2015 on 2:28 pm

    Achieving actual singularity in the next century? Silly human..

  • Kptn Blizz January 26, 2015 on 3:27 pm

    “Exponential” is a hollow phrase Singularitarians use for their blind tech-industry-lobbying. As long as they don’t face topics like exponential growth of electronic and other waste or the exponential exploitation of resources that always come along with exponential industries and standards of living they’re far from any academic/scientific approach.

    • Brent Simpson Kptn Blizz December 25, 2015 on 4:59 pm

      One thing to think of perhaps on this front is the very intelligence to innovate and think systemically that is generally required to build exponential technologies can be put towards environmental concerns in terms of pragmatically building sustainability into the industries. This doean’the mean he seems innovators will (think in extreme cases nazi-doctors… high cognition low morals) but generally, the more you know the more moral you try to be as you see the systemic consequences of your actions more clearly.

  • Stefan Pernar January 26, 2015 on 3:49 pm

    Would be good to see an updated graph – the last entry is from 1999.

  • ronsonntag January 26, 2015 on 4:33 pm

    Thought about existing concepts may be biased towards being linear. However, human thought in conceiving theories or applications never before dreamed of are definitely non-linear. Most have formed in the sub-conscious, a realm of brain activity of which we are most ignorant!

    • Shoshannah Shaman ronsonntag January 26, 2015 on 8:36 pm

      These are the same thoughts I’ve been having on this subject. The brain/mind is a complex web rather than a linear thought-machine. The things going on in our unconscious and subconscious are esoteric, deeply hidden and far stranger than most people could imagine.

      I’ve seen Kurzweil give several interesting talks, and I have noticed his long-standing facial tic. This tic of his lets me know that he hasn’t figured out what his brain is doing. Once he does, that tic will be resolved. I know because I had a similar issue and had to figure out why and how to fix it. I don’t believe he understands what is going on in his brain unconsciously, and so he reduces his tic to a purely physiological cause, and thinks it’s unfixable. It isn’t. The tic is a blocking technique some people’s brains do in order to prevent a painful feeling/memory from breaking into conscious awareness. If Kurzweil ever figures out the workings of his own unconscious mind, he would no doubt have huge bursts of creative energy and understanding. He is an amazing human being nonetheless.

  • Bryan Duke January 26, 2015 on 5:15 pm

    With so many critical systems edging to over complexity driven failure its unlikely we’ll still have the infra structures required for this magical word.

    Moores Law requires industry to procreate

  • christiankrohn January 26, 2015 on 6:09 pm

    would also like to get a grasp on predicted societal changes – resulting from above technological advances. will it likely lead to resource abundance or is it more likely that those resources will be controlled by few?

    • Brent Simpson christiankrohn December 25, 2015 on 5:58 pm

      Personally, and this is something Kurzweil doesn’t address enough. The notion that with major techno-industrial changes there are profound changes in how we make meaning in the world. Just three of the major examples of this are the transitions into the agrarian revolution approx. 5 thousand years ago, the industrial revolution 300ish years ago, and the information revolution 60ish years ago. Each of these came with very distinct ways of making meaning and sense of the cosmos.

      The first was (among many other things) and a means to escape the “power-gods” the shaman kings that ruled through blood oath (in todays standard) a ruthless might is right social structure this was transcended through the crafting of moral code or laws that in certain ways went beyond an individuals ability alone to dictate the method and exact structure of ruling. (Often the entially laws came from what was often described as God, although this may well have been just a misconception from the individuals and one should at least give these first craters of “law” the dignity they deserve in that these were in important ways more wholesome more inclusive methods of governing society than the previous might makes right method.

      We next see a major transition in making sense of the world during the industrial revolution. It seems, through the mechanization and productivity that this brought people strayed viewing the cosmos as itself a machine… one that if finely tuned (like a giant clock) could create ever more production. In this sense, instead of waiting for heaven in the next life – we can CREATE heaven on earth. Strive-drive, excellence and achievement were championed.
      In the sixties largely corresponding with the informational revolution we start seeing a lot more pexpletive dropping out (of the rat race). To get technical there was a realization that people couldn’the really, fully be objective observers… that there was bias within the observations of the scientists. A common example might be a white, middle-class white person. Sure there wouldn’the typically be much variants in observations such as “is it raining ourside?” You can run this “empirical” test on most people in the world (verifying it with others) and the results pretty consistent across the board (with exceptions like delusion and the blind perhaps). But when the empirical examinations get more complex often the biases get stronger perhaps think complex experiments in psychology for example.

      The social matrix we are now entering in again is unprecedented… exponential technologies are really starting to show their force (the example I like here is related to chess. The emperor of China wanted to reward the creator of the chess board for such a wonderful game. The creator of chess said “put one grain of rice on the first square of the chess board double it on the second square and continue to do so until the 64th. The emperor was astonished by he seeming modesty of her man. “That can’take be very much”. In reality, by the 32nd square the amount of rice is equivalent to a mount everest of rice and that doubles with the next square. We are now approaching the middle of the chessboard. We have entered the valley of the uncanny. Magically astonishing if we can hold his ship together (but, the higher up the ladder we go… the more thextreme ladder sways (more complexity is being balanced) and the faster we go. Speed in this sense is a dangeroys thing. But also what fun.

  • João Barbosa January 26, 2015 on 7:01 pm

    You find that surprising? It’s a shame you probably can’t read Portuguese. I have published a dissertation on Academia.edu called “Digitopia II” that goes beyond that. While without dates, it goes beyond what you are seeing as possible or the trend, if I may be so arrogant.

  • Fern January 27, 2015 on 1:22 am

    currently the worldWideWeb is growing into the worldWideWait, the computing power in my transportable and highly portable phone has grown to a such degree that I can now play multiple games of on-line poker with Bill (friend who’s sitting on the sofa next to me) and other low-lifes without having to speak to him/them…. Great!! So while I’m sucking the life out of life the materialistic singularity of which my fractal consciousness has evolved to bring about, is giving birth to a new consciousness from which I’m to benefit right? Humm…. where’s my dioritos?

    Any predictions on how the worker-bees of the humans tree will fair by the year 2045, yeah sure I’ll have a liver built out of thin air and my artificial right leg will be able to kick a ball from her into a VR and back! but……..

  • SmL9 January 27, 2015 on 5:56 am

    Ray Kurtzweil is undoubtedly very smart, and he’s made some good predictions over the years. My only question is: how many predictions has he made that didn’t come to pass? Is his accuracy higher than any other AI specialist?

  • danieljohnyoung January 27, 2015 on 2:23 pm

    The biggest concern here if I were an entrepreneur is that if Ray’s right everyone will be able to tap into the knowledge, intuition and energy that separates entrepreneur’s from ‘normal’ people today. So everyone will be an entrepreneur – what happens then?

  • Utomo Prawiro January 27, 2015 on 5:40 pm

    is there any youtube video alternative ?
    the video blocked in some country.
    Thank you

  • brucepos January 27, 2015 on 11:50 pm

    The graph doesn’t show exponential growth, as the ‘power’ axis is logarithmic. Instead it’s some sort of exponential-exponential growth, which really is gilding the lily!

  • Dan Vasii January 28, 2015 on 12:14 pm

    Mr. Ray is an extraordinary inventor, but he is mistaking the wetware with the “hardware”, and ignoring the software that is run by the wetware! The brain can be “considered” a parallel/analogical/biochemical computer, something that can hard…ly be compared with the sequential/digital/electronic computers of today. And above all arguments, there is no mathematical/algorhythmical model of human intelligence, just animal grade one.

  • Crazypants January 28, 2015 on 3:56 pm

    He didn’t mention that in 2019 drones will be made commercially available to all American families through Amazon Prime for killing people in developing countries.

  • Havana January 30, 2015 on 1:36 pm

    What I find striking about the predictions for the next 25 years is that they’re a mix of late non-predictions, i.e. things that are ALREADY happening and too easy to predict, e.g. 10 terabyte computing, the passable Turing-test, self-driving cars, and totally unlikely predictions, e.g. download consciousness, no more diseases.

  • Pierce Leonard Troy January 31, 2015 on 1:43 am

    One thing must be noted! Humans will be have some highways designated for auto-automobiles

  • RSG February 3, 2015 on 6:45 am

    If you talk to any Targeted Individual, they’ll all tell you that the last prediction already exists (By 2045, we will multiply our intelligence a billionfold by linking wirelessly from our neocortex to a synthetic neocortex in the cloud.), except it’s being hacked and abused (synthetic telepathy).

  • Daniel Rezac June 7, 2015 on 9:12 am

    I realize that we may hit a wall in regards to transistor size, but couldn’t we make up for that with mesh networking? Couldn’t our connected computers help us continue to keep that curve rising?

  • Spyros Doulgeridis June 7, 2015 on 9:45 am

    Hi Peter.

    Excellent article!

    A quick question though: “6D’s of exponential thinking” ???


  • Patti Wilson June 7, 2015 on 12:27 pm

    Amazingly insightful predictions. Thank you. I wonder how would passing 2C in global warming in less than 20 years, and barreling right through 4C by 2050 affect all these predictions? Is not the biggest threat to human mass extinction on the near horizon is being ignored? Hopefully with the resulting hive-mind in the clouds, we will all think of something, right?

  • lokanadam June 7, 2015 on 5:57 pm

    please clear this doubt about an individual human brain:
    1. let us say a human took 15 years to learn to talk, walk, store 1 petabyte of data…in 1900’s
    2. how many years is a human taking now ?

  • Frank Triana June 28, 2015 on 6:34 pm

    I’d say that the science which we don’t see as well, bio-tech and chemistry are where the opportunities are. Then even global warming/climate change aren’t problems, but rather opportunities. No doubt that these computers are the tools which will explain genetics and chemistry, more so. On electronics we are small enough and as a rule the price of electronics go down and the upgrade cycle is too often now.

    Data miners are perfect for extremely complex enigmas and the ability to do statistical evaluations on simple things are too over rated. The cloud has too many players and is more of a commodity now. Reminds me of stepping over a dollar to pick up a penny. I recall the insurance industry not wanting to agree on replacing stolen T-Top wit new ones, which were three time the cost of used ones. However, the reluctantly agreed and that ended the growing into a billion dollar business of T-Top theft. Then again they are as an industry the worse investors. Actuarial science is numbers, yet you do have to apply analytically sound judgement?

    As far as nano goes, the fracking/petro chemical industry pouring acidic orange into well to remove/clean the sludge off the rocks/well, clever yet simplistic. Again if bio-tech and chemistry are exploited, we may solve some problems and even find an element or two on the periodic table.

    I’ll be pragmatic like PatrikD.

  • Andrew Angle July 10, 2015 on 6:24 am

    “photons”, not “photos”.

  • James Becker December 4, 2015 on 2:21 pm

    Computer power is not measured in terabytes. Teraflops, maybe?

  • Paramendra Kumar Bhagat January 9, 2016 on 11:01 am

    It feels very real.