Talk:Ray Kurzweil/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Added a criticism section

I've added a section for criticisms. I think that once the above poster finishes cutting down the predictions section we will finally have an objective article. Why does Ray Kurzweil deserve a wikipedia article that's longer than Abe Lincoln's? Kurzweil's views are *not* mainstream views, and I think that it is important for an article discussing the man to point that out. Certainly reasoned critiques of his arguments by the few credible computer-industry folks who've taken the time to consider it are as relevant as the fact that he like Carrie Underwood and Alanis Morissette. Extliquani (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The addition of the Criticisms section is a great idea. But I don't think childish criticisms like "Kurzweil's work reminds me of dog feces and good food mixed together" should be included. Only include ones that are scientific and professional in nature.Egermino (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ray Kurzweil is a futurist, so of course his views can be debated, nobody knows the future for certain. However, any criticism that takes a scientific, neutral view on his methods and finds flaws with it, is more than welcome, surely. As to the length of the article, a summary article would do great disservice to understanding the man. It's not like we are going to run out of paper because the article is too long, are we? Brevity of articles is something that works for paper encyclopedias due to having a physical book to consider, while in the internet, the focus is on the information that can be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.7.3 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Protein folding prediction failure

Haha I love how the author of the section cited below (Kurzweil?) spins it to blame "lack of scientific understanding" for the failure of this prediction. We have all the knowledge we need to very accurately simulate protein folding, check out Molecular dynamics for example, there is only one problem: NOT ENOUGH COMPUTING POWER. Thats what predicting the future is always about: emphasizing correct predictions and marginalizing errors.

"Kurzweil predicts that, in 2005, supercomputers with the computational capacities to simulate protein folding will be introduced. However, he does not say that an adequate scientific understanding of the forces behind protein folding will come into being in the same year, meaning that the supercomputers might lack the software to mimic accurately the biochemical process. In fact, protein folding is still (as of 2008) a poorly understood phenomenon, and even supercomputer simulations remain inaccurate outside of simulating the folding of anything larger than a basic protein."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.242.255.83 (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Computers in the Home

I was counting the computers in my house:

• electric toothbrush (arguably a computer),
• solar pv power inverter,
• computerized electric meter,
• tv (3 of them)
• dvd player (2 of them)
• printer
• computers (4 of them)
• monitors (4 of them)
• alarm clock radios (4 of them)
• cell phones (2 of them)
• laptop computer
• washer
• dryer
• fridge
• microwave oven
• toaster (arguably)
• thermostat (arguably, 2 of them)
• game cube,
• nintendo
• router

So, I got up to 34 computers without counting any computers in the two cars, nor any of the toys that the kids get as gifts and quickly break (e.g. ipod). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.131.5 (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

None of those count unless you know how to compute using them. Which (for 99.99% of the population), removes all of them from the list, including the actual laptop computer. -- P

Raymond Kurzweil Dead?

I notice in the header that the summary is past tense; that is, Ray Kurzweil is dead. Is this true? If so, can this be continued as a "living person" bio? More importantly, how did he back up and die four years before he was born? Some reincarnation-loop thing?

QualityDr (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak criticism

Having worked professionally on AI projects, I find it amusing that important and successful technical people such as Bill Joy (of Sun) and Mitch Kapor (of Lotus) are mentioned as having the same authority as writers of science fiction. Science fiction writers, folks, spend a lot of time reading popularized science in an attempt to understand what's going on. The times that I have interfaced with them directly, I've found them to have shallow understanding of what they're writing about technically and indifference to having their "world view" corrected by trivial things like facts (there are exceptions, such as Jules Verne, Arthur C. Clarke, Charles Sheffield, etc.) They are writers and entertainers, folks, not engineers, and not scientists. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The irony here being that the whole singularity meme was initially cooked up by an sf writer, albeit one who is actively involved in computer science. I don't feel much hesistation in citing a writer with a background in engineering and a proven track record of predicting future trends like Neal Stephenson (Google Earth, Second Life) when what we are discussing is still fundamentally within the realm of speculation. (Extliquani (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

I thought like that when I was little and was amazed (independently) by the outlook of tech progress and how it can potentially extend our lifespan. But the more I was actually confronted with real scientific knowledge and read more interviews of those guys (Drexler, Kurzweil etc) when confronted with real scientists, the more I realized just how dead wrong and delusional they were (on grounds that we all make up our own reality). They are clinging to various ideas, often pseudo or incomplete science no matter what, and are putting vague theories/hunches into fact.

We cannot even predict the future five years down the line (just watch the Internet evolve). The only thing I am quite certain is that Kurzweil & Co will die like any other homo sapien. Ultimately Kurzweil just has his own personal religion, they all deal with death in fancy ways.

I respect him though, as I do anyone who promotes technology and interest therein. But anyone clinging on to the same obsolete, half baked ideas should rather find out what really matters in life. Slicky (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh... WEIGHT?

This is the first time ever on Wikipedia where I see an article about a person that includes their WEIGHT... What on Earth does that have to do with anything? Obhave (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"He also advocates maintaining a slightly below-average body weight on the grounds that it imparts some of the life-extension benefits of full caloric restriction." 87.116.211.124 (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Moog (and other contributors?)

I apologize for not taking the time to do this myself, but I'd like to bring this to the attention of the person or persons who work on this article.

I believe Robert Moog was instrumental in the design of the Kurzweil synthesizer. This would be a good thing to mention in the article, not only in the spirit of completeness and giving credit where due, but also because it would make the connection between Kurzweil's admirable efforts in the digital music world and the field in general.

Given the absence of this mention, I wonder if there are other significant contributors to other Kurzweil achievements. I once heard Moog speak, immediately after the "Kurzweil" had been released, and he was full of praise for Kurzweil's openness to the ideas of other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.65.232 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

criticism of accuracy of predictions

I'm not familiar with this article. IEEE Spectrum has criticized the accuracy of his predictions[1], but I don't know how much weight should be given to this, and where it should be placed. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Also on the subject of prediction accuracy, the article talks about his predictions of the ascendance of solid-state storage over hard drive usage, stating that this was far off the mark. I am writing this on the late-2010 produced MacBook Air, which does dispense with mechanical storage, and I suggest that this is indeed a harbinger of things shortly to come, for portable devices, i.e. note/netbooks, etc., at least. Given that he predicted this some ten years earlier, I feel that being off by a year or so is forgiveable!201.159.193.150 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Factual Errors

Hey all,

This statement is anything but accurate, on many levels:

"Concurrent with Kurzweil Music Systems, Kurzweil created the company Kurzweil Applied Intelligence (KAI) to develop computer speech recognition systems for commercial use. The first product, which debuted in 1987, was the world's first large-vocabulary speech recognition program, allowing human users to dictate to their computers via microphone and then have the device transcribe their speech into written text. Later, the company combined the speech recognition technology with medical expert systems to create the Kurzweil VoiceMed (today called Clinical Reporter) line of products, which allow doctors to write medical reports by speaking instead of writing. KAI exists today as Nuance Communications."

(a) Their speech recognition was not the first one, IBM and Philips were well ahead at the time. I'll get some references, there is a lot of papers from that time.

(b) The article neglects to say that this system recognized only isolated words, one at a time.

(c) The "VoiceMed" system had numerous hurdles to overcome and is, even in its current form, far from anything originally envisioned. More importantly, Kurzweil had not much to do with it at all, other than "envisioning an idea". This reference to this should be removed. If anything, give some credit to the poor engineers that were left with this mess.

(d) "KAI exists today as Nuance Communications" is a joke gone bad at the best!! KAI was saved from bankruptcy only because it was sold to Lernout & Hauspie (L&H) in 1997 - for hundreds of millions of USD, nevertheless! One of the many deals Kurzweil did not regret. L&H went under in 2002 or so, with its CEO, Gaston Bastiaens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston_Bastiaens) ending up in jail. Nuance, in the meantime, was taken over by ScanSoft, which retained the name Nuance. Later, thy picked up the pieces of what was left of L&H, and the scarce remains of KAI. There is a place for nostalgia - but as I understand it, Wikipedia is NOT it.

Anyone gonna fix all that?

Best,

- Manfred

98.216.96.7 (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If the content/article is unsourced, you could just delete the unsourced and inaccurate bits. If it conflicts with the source, same. If it matches the source, you might choose to add content and sources that dispute the existing sources. Or not. Shajure (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Vernor Vinge's technological singularity

In his popular writings Kurzweil tends to elaborate on big ideas introduced by others, especially the technological singularity popularized by Vernor Vinge 20 years ago. But Kurzweil's essays and interviews on the singularity (especially his "responses to critics") are spin-doctored such that a casual reader will get the impression it was his own idea. This article should mention that it was Vernor Vinge who came up with this, not Kurzweil. Quiname (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

So I added that his book and movie are based on Vernor Vinge's idea of a technological singularity.

Quiname (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the wp:OR that Kurzweil's work was based on Vinge's. The work itself might perhaps belong in the article on the book by Vinge, or in Vinge's article, but at the moment does not here. Perhaps an SA for the work if it merits an article. An interested editor might find a source that claims Kurzweil's work was based on Vinge's, and introduce that into this article, or into Vinge's or not.Shajure (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This was not wp:OR - every Singularitarian knows that the technological singularity is a concept put forth by Vernor Vinge! The reference above is not even the first, Vinge had earlier SF novels on that. Vernor Vinge's priority is well documented also in other Wikipedia articles. The present spin-doctored article obviously should cite Vinge.Quiname (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If every Singulitarian knows this, then there will be a third party source discussing any influence Vinge had on Kurzweil. That you were bringing in primary sources is where you were getting into original research. Now, if you want to go to the technological singularity article and cite this as an earlier example, sure, but this article is about Ray Kurzweil. If you want to discuss any ideas that influenced him, you need a source that says the idea influenced him. You can't take something that doesn't mention him and cite that as evidence of influence. "Spin-doctored?" Can you really point to one example of the article claiming he came up with he concept? We don't need to point out that Thomas Aquinas didn't come up with the concept of the Christian God by himself, we can just discuss their thoughts on the subject. Are those articles "spin-doctored" to present Aquinas as inventing God? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Quin, I would encourage you to read the wp:OR document you linked. Putting what "everyone knows" into an article without citing a source that says it is indeed wp:OR. "Everyone knows" many, many things that are not appropriate for WP. WP exists to compile the knowledge that is already published in generally reliable sources. WP cannot assess truth or falsehood, it can only determine whether or not content conflicts with what has been published.Shajure (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, at Google scholar one can find numerous external scholarly sources citing Vernor Vinge as the creator of the concept of the technological singularity: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3688559863916355898&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en But even without all those citations by others it's so obvious that I cannot believe you want to call this OR - Vinge published in 1993, Kurzweil in 2005. Quiname (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not contested that Vinge wrote first, the article does not counter that in the slightest, please don't pretend that this is relevent at all. What is undocumented is whether or not Kurzweil was directly influenced by Kurzweil. 18 years is enough time for the idea of the Singularity to spread such that Kurzweil easily could have heard of it from other sources (I personally heard about it from sources influenced by both of them without hearing of them first). This is why you need a source that outright says Kurzweil was influenced by Vinge. It is your job to hunt for the citation. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Even Kurzweil's own book credits Vernor Vinge. I hope this will settle it. Quiname (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, then you will be able to cite the book, page number... ideally provide a quote.Shajure (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) This article currently has:

In February 2009, Kurzweil, in collaboration with Google and the NASA Ames Research Center, announced the creation of Singularity University. The University's self-described mission is to "assemble, educate and inspire a cadre of leaders who strive to understand and facilitate the development of exponentially advancing technologies and apply, focus and guide these tools to address humanity’s grand challenges".[38] Using Vernor Vinge's Singularity concept as a foundation, the University, whose initial class of 40 Fellows began their nine-week graduate program in June, 2009, provides students the skills and tools to guide the process of the Singularity "for the benefit of humanity and its environment". Singularity University encompasses cross-disciplinary studies in ten different scientific and future-oriented tracks, taught by industry experts.

This seems to have identified the relationship between the concepts already. I am unsure what you are trying to accomplish.Shajure (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not even see this. Long articles can hide relevant info in places read by few, and claim: it was there all along (one of spin doctor's favorite tools). I still think this should be in a more prominent place, such that the casual reader won't get misled. Quiname (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

wp:talk might be a good read, as well as wp:or. Drop the spin doctor thing, please, it makes it hard to focus on the issue (if any) at hand. Please focus on the content. What content do you find misleading? If it is not sourced, perhaps it needs to be sourced. If it is sourced but you disagree, perhaps you might choose to find a source and add the opposing view.167.29.4.150 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you're going to insult other editors by calling those who have worked on the article "spin doctors", please bring in evidence for your claims instead of continuing the empty name calling. Why is it that Shajure is a spin doctor for pointing out something that "was there all along," and you're not just incompetent for not thinking to hit ctrl-F and search for "Vinge" on the page? Why is the article "Ray Kurzweil" just discussing Ray Kurzweil a problem? And why couldn't you just cite the book, page, and passage where Kurzweil says before this mess even started?

When you want to make any claim, whether it's article content, or accusations of POV editing, make sure you have every detail laid out before you even formulate your claim! If you want to say that Kurzweil was influenced by Vinge, you should have cited Kurzweil or a third party source. If you wanted to accuse people of bad editing, find actual bad content (such as something actually saying Kurzweil came up with the the idea), find a way to explain how its bad (see citing Kurzweil saying he was influenced by Vinge), find who made the bad edits (go through the article history), and then lay your case out. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Denigrating Thomas Edison

The article mentions that some web magazine called "Inc. Magazine" claims Kurzweil is the "rightful heir to Thomas Edison." This embarrassing and ridiculous statement should be removed as it belittles Edison. Kurzweil's team invented a few extensions or improvements of previous inventions by others, but nothing that's remotely comparable to the truly influential stuff that came out of Edison's lab. (If there a heirs to Edison, then they are people like Shunpei Yamazaki and Kia Silverbrook, who collected even more patents than Edison.) Quiname (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is wp:OR. An interested editor might find another source disputing Inc's claim, and place it into the article, bearing in mind wp:BLP.Shajure (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Humor: I just noticed "some web magazine"... Inc Magazine is a paper slickzine, and not a new one.Shajure (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Inc. (magazine) - WP article for it, if interested.Shajure (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Moravec generalized Moore's law, not Kurzweil

The article claims: "In his controversial 2001 essay, "The Law of Accelerating Returns", Kurzweil proposes an extension of Moore's law that forms the basis of the concept of Technological Singularity."

But of course it was Hans Moravec who first published this extension of Moore's law. Moore's law describes an exponential growth pattern in the complexity of integrated semiconductor circuits. In his book Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind, published in 1998, Moravec extends this to include technologies from far before the integrated circuit to future forms of technology, also plotting the exponentially increasing computational power of the brains of animals in evolutionary history. Extrapolating these trends, he speculates that robots will evolve into a new series of artificial species, starting around 2030-2040, and predicts a coming "mind fire" of rapidly expanding superintelligence.

And of course the basis of the concept of a Technological Singularity was created by Vernor Vinge, not by Kurzweil.

The article has many such issues. I think it must be re-written such that Kurzweil does not get credit for ideas introduced by others. Otherwise it will look like a biased autobiography. Quiname (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

First, I think the problem here is that this is an encyclopedia article, rather than an academic journal article. Proposing a theory in a popular essay or interview or political campaign isn't the same at all as it would be in an academic setting.

• "claims" - are you concerned that the essay doesn't say that? What is it that you would change? The word "proposes" seems to be your concern, but I am uncertain. Perhaps "discusses" would make you less unhappy? Do you have a source that *says* the that Kurzweil got the idea from Moravec? post hoc ergo propter hoc is a trap.
• "But of course" - not a generally effective approach.
• "The article has many such issues." - Perhaps, but you aren't explaining your concerns in a way I, at least, can understand them. I think I understand you feel the article is giving Kurzweil credit, but I think this exists in the mind of a reader rather than in the text of the article. I again encourage you to focus on the actual text in the actual article, and the changes you would make or propose or suggest, bearing in mind wp:OR, wp:BLP and that this is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal.Shajure (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not read Moravec's "mere machine...", but the single review given at his article does not cast it in a great light.Shajure (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have dropped this new addition, as well, it might be a good addition to the Moravec article, which needs much help. To add Moravec here, we need a source that says Kurzweil got his idea from Moravec.Shajure (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Or a source that compares their interpretations, for another example.Shajure (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir Arthur C. Clarke wrote about the book of Hans Moravec: "Robot is the most awesome work of controlled imagination I have ever encountered: Hans Moravec stretched my mind until hit the stops." Quiname (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Great addition for Moravec's weak article.Shajure (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The current article claims that Kurzweil proposed this idea in 2001 (you changed it back). This is simply misleading, and must be augmented by the info that Moravec published the same thing much earlier. Why do you say we need a source that says Kurzweil got his idea from Moravec? That's like some guy X re-publishing relativity theory without citing Einstein's earlier work, then writing a Wikipedia article claiming X proposed relativity theory, without mentioning Einstein. Then somebody else corrects the article by referring to Einstein's priority. Then you come along and change it back and say it must be first shown that X was influenced by Einstein. Surely this cannot be the purpose of Wikipedia. Quiname (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• "This is simply misleading..." - How is it misleading? Is there a source that says something different? If so, adding it would be good. But your source was silent about Kurzweil.

Equating Einstein to Moravec. Just no.

On the purpose of WP, you might seek guidance from a senior editor (maybe an admin, though they are often rather busy) that isn't involved in this article. Also, again, reading wp:OR may help. wp:reliable sources are one of the wp:pillars of WP.Shajure (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• WP exists to compile the knowledge that is already published in generally reliable sources. WP cannot assess truth or falsehood, it can only determine whether or not content conflicts with what has been published. Shajure (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But a WP article on this should not hide the plain fact who published this first, otherwise it will become a propaganda vehicle for Kurzweil's PR. (By the way, Kurzweil's 2001 article at least mentions Moravec, which makes it even more implausible that Kurzweil did not know the famous book of Moravec, although he does not say explicitly: "Moravec generalized Moore's law long before I did.") Quiname (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It does not hide it. It does not mention it. This is an article about a man. If the theory deserves an article (or articles), who-came-first probably would belong there... and I see you are working on that. It *might* belong, if there is a source that ties the two together. But even then, not sure. Again: this is about the guy.Shajure (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Equating Einstein to Moravec. Just no." Shajure (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but where is the borderline? How much "less famous than Einstein" is still ok? It's all subjective, so let's just mention the facts: who published this idea first. Quiname (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• "borderline" - no. Sorry there just isn't a borderline... I was simply responding to the comment the only way I could think of. I don't see your remark as being related to the content.Shajure (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is he a scientist really?

I came to this page to see what kind of scientist Ray Kurzweil is. The page lists him as a scientist, but all I see is a bachelors degree in computer science and and some software contributions. Is this the standard by which someone earns the title of scientist? Computer Scientist, maybe, but even that might be a stretch.

I don't know if I'm off the mark here. If he has actually published original research, then that really needs to be in the article. It would be silly to list someone as an author, but not mention any works they've written.

If he is in fact a scientist, then please talk about his scientific contributions! His title should be modified to what kind of scientist he is. Is he a biologist? I ask because the controversy section mentions some spat with biologists and it gives a false impression of his expertise if people are thinking that it's a bunch of equally-accredited biologists arguing. This as opposed to biologists arguing against an "outside" speculator. If he's a scientist but not a biology or medical scientist, then perhaps the generic title of "Scientist" should be changed to "Computer Scientist." I don't think it's exhibiting bias if you're overly-specific.

I don't mean to insult Kurzweil, but to point out that this is actually kind of an offense to those people out there struggling on dissertations and publications so that they might one day feel comfortable calling themselves scientists. It's not a title that you just toss about or leave up to assumption. It's like calling someone a Doctor when they majored in pre-med and then had a successful herbal supplement shop. It's like calling a TA, "professor." And you don't even call the greatest, most knowledgeable NFL Football fan, "Coach."--Trypsin (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question but it's not going to be decided here. My feeling is the answer is no and that furthermore the bourgeois concept of scientist expressed is somewhat irrelevant to the actual issues raised but I hear you on the matte of doing the work to be rightly called a scientist even if that is entangled in some elements of the former. Whether or not "computer science" is a science similarly isn't going to be decided here. There are a variety of social issues both in the question and in the subject of this article which it's pointless to go into here. I believe he would be classed as an inventor and entrepreneur, with strong bona fide's as an engineer but not a scientist. At first pulled the statement about resurrecting his father as absurd on the face of it and as there was nothing at all at Rolling Stone matching it but then as I was watching Transcendent Man he began to express something similar in his own words. He didn't flat out say that but I stopped watching it shortly after that. As for his predictions and the like I've commented on that in my user space, not relevant for the article here. The point is cogent, and I think if he is treated as a "inventor, enterpreneur, and futurist" that will be the best approach for the article and the most consistent with its actual real world subject. Lycurgus (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This again. Again and again: see the general press where he is referred to as a scientist. WP cannot and does not attempt to assess truth... only what is or is not in the published wp:RS.Shajure (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"See the general press" .., are you fucking serious? As far as what he's referred to in the body of the article, don't really give a shit and haven't touched anything relative to that. Did do some tag maintenance, but the only thing I'm concerned about is the thing where he's supposed to have said he wants to resurrect or clone his father and use his memories of him for that purpose. Deleted it at first but had to put it back when I saw him giving it support in his own words or coming close to it. Lycurgus (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite. WP is based on what is in the press.Shajure (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Is WP really based on the press? Just like Encyclopædia Britannica is? --92.37.103.65 (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of an individual

Pointless section. I would normally simply remove it, but I don't care that much. Please leave the flag in. This will encourage an editor who cares about the subject to put the criticism with the content being criticized... which is much more work and far more useful to readers.Shajure (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The section 'Avoid sections and articles focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies"' in the essay Wikipedia:Criticism is relevant here. It may not be policy or a guideline, but it is good advice -- Donald Albury 13:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hulu as a source

I reverted an addition sourced to Transcendent Man as inadequately sourced. An editor incorrectly posted on my talk page that the source was the documentary, not Hulu. If so, the documentary, not Hulu, should be given as the source. Even then, I would have stricken the addition under wp:BLP, as inadequately sourced. I don't care, I don't think I will strike it again if re-added, but the discussion belongs here, or on the Reliable Source discussion page, or the BLP talk page, not my talk page: no one will see it there, as I will strike it *INSTANTLY*.Shajure (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Pre-GA comments

This is a GA quick fail. Numerous unreferenced sentences and even paragraphs. I thought about reviewing this, but until this is addressed it is a waste of time... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Scientists and thinkers

What are thinkers, anyway? I understand enough non-scientist figures have criticized him to bear mentioning, but surely we can do better than ‘thinkers’. --Saerain (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ray Kurzweil/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 17:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Against my own better judgment, and the comment made on the article talk page, I will not quick fail this article. Yes, there is considerable unsourced text here, which could lead one to justifiably quick fail the article. However, it's not completely unsourced, and I feel it's pretty well written, and I'll allow time for sourcing to be provided.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead is too short. For an article of 23kb prose, MOS:LEAD suggests two or three paragraphs. I don't like the header titles chosen ("Early life", "Mid-life", "Later life"), and I suggest this be changed to more adequately explain his life in terms of his career and achievements, rather than merely setting arbitrary timeframes that make him sound over the hill. I feel these sections should be better integrated with the later sections in the page ("Involvement with futurism and transhumanism", "Stance on nanotechnology", "The Law of Accelerating Returns", "Predictions", "Health and aging"), which do not fit in well as currently structured. Otherwise, the prose is the strength of this article. The language used is very good throughout.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   This is the major problem of this article. The "Early life" section is undersourced. There are three paragraphs in the "Mid-life" section that have no sources whatsoever. The "Later life", "Involvement with futurism and transhumanism", and "Predictions" sections continues the trend of unsourced paragraphs. There is also a tag, that has been there since December 2011. That's a big problem, and makes me wonder about why the article was nominated as it is. Many of the sources seem to be tagged as dead links.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article seems to cover the subject well, and does not take any tangents.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is a criticism section, which I believe is appropriate given the fact that the subject's work has been criticized. I'm going to hold off on fully reviewing this section at this time, since I might be failing it soon anyway.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable. There was a flurry of editing by the nominator on the day prior to the nomination.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The article includes two images from Commons, and both are fine.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Maybe I should have quick failed this, now that I've gotten further through the review. However, I feel that as it is not totally unreferenced, and doesn't have any orange tags, that quick failing it would be a little extreme. Besides, this article does have real strengths, and with work, could become a GA. Let's see how well you can fix it up in a week or two.

• It's been about a week with no responses or work done, so I'm failing this now. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kurzweil singularity bookcover.jpg

The image Image:Kurzweil singularity bookcover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: Edited by a computer. Would you have known? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.116.24 (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Melfi's pyschiatrist

I don't see anything on here about Kurzweil being Dr. Melfi's psychiatrist on The Sopranos. I think there should at least be a section on his acting career, and other characters he's played on television or in films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.90.242 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Melfi's psychiatrist was played by Peter Bogdanovich. --Silas Ropac (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

TODO : mention his nomination at Google as engineering director

When will someone fill this section in ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.174.134 (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

see : http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/14/ray-kurzweil-joins-google-as-engineering-director-focusing-on-machine-learning-and-language-tech/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.3.137.156 (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's now mentioned in a few places in the article so this seems resolved. Silas Ropac (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ultimate Thinking Machine

Under recognition and awards it says "Kurzweil was referred to by Forbes as "the ultimate thinking machine."". The citation is a Reuters.com story which repeats the Forbes quote. It think this 1998 story in Forbes is the original source: [2]. This would make a better citation that the Reuters.com story wouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silas Ropac (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I updated the citation. --Silas Ropac (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive old sections

A number of sections on this talk page are untouched since 2007, 2008. How do we clean this up so active talk topics are more visible? Do we just delete them or who can we nicely archive them. Some talk pages have bots which automatically archive sections which have no activity, should that be done here? Silas Ropac (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'll add a bot to archive the page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow fantastic, thanks. Silas Ropac (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

How to Create a Mind

I created a new article for How to Create a Mind. Once it has been reviewed and revised some, I think we should link from this main Kurzweil article to it. Note I kept the summary/content section short, because I wanted it to be proportional to the criticism section. I believe Kurzweil's books are so packed full of information and details, it is tempting to try and relate everything in them instead of summarizing them at a high level. Not sure I struck the right balance, but that was the intent. Silas Ropac (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the link in the books section. Is it on purpose we don't also have links to the books in the lead? Also I removed the book jacket text describing How to Create a Brain and left a shorter more neutral description, and of course a link to the new book article. Silas Ropac (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I expanded How to Create a Mind a lot after first linking it, so now it is C class, same as this main Kurzweil article. I hope to help push the other 3 books: The Age of Intelligent Machines, The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity is Near up to C as well. Please help if you can! Then as for Predictions made by Ray Kurzweil I'm not sure how to tackle that one, it is very far from C today. Any bright ideas? Silas Ropac (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I expanded How to Create a Mind a bit more, it is now B Class. I requested a peer review, see if it can be GA at some point. If any experienced editor can help: Talk:How to Create a Mind. Thanks. Silas Ropac (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Potential merger on related pages

This does not effect the contents of this Kurzweil page directly. But FYI there is an active merger proposal to merge the predictions in these two articles:

• The Age of Spiritual Machines
• The Singularity Is Near

Into the common predictions page:

• Predictions made by Ray Kurzweil

This is to get rid of the massive amount of duplication that exists currently between those 3 pages, we have essentially 2 complete copies of the same predictions in 2 different places. This is bad for editors and readers alike, it makes the Kurzweil material look very much uncared for. See the official Merger Proposal. Please add comments on the predictions talk page if you support it, if you have a better idea, or if you disagree. I am really only interested in getting rid of the duplication, and am open to any idea how best to accomplish that goal. Silas Ropac (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: I updated the Merger Proposal with final plans. I plan to delete the predictions from the 2 book pages. The prediction sections in the book pages will look like the new predictions section in The Age of Intelligent Machines, it will point to the predictions page and then have just a few highlights. So I plan to close the discussion on the merger proposal soon, there has been zero input so it's consensus by silence so far. Silas Ropac (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Final Update: this is all done. The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity is Near are newly slimmed down, ready to be improved from here. While Predictions made by Ray Kurzweil remains unchanged, is now the single spot for the detailed predictions. However it has real problems. Way too much summary and single-source (but uncited) material. Share ideas how to fix on it's talk page. Silas Ropac (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Good move. —Fluous (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Predictions article - the last holdout

Two months ago these 4 articles were non-existent, or stub/start class:

• How to Create a Mind
• The Age of Intelligent Machines
• The Age of Spiritual Machines
• The Singularity is Near

Now all 4 articles are B-class. Well.... Intelligent Machines is C-class but I've fixed the issues that kept it from being B, I just haven't pestered someone to do a re-re-assessment.

So this is good. I think it really raises the bar on Kurzweil related articles.

However there is a black sheep in the family: Predictions made by Ray Kurzweil, an unassessed article. It is in dire need of a rethink. Can anyone sketch out what a B-class predictions article would look like? Is it even possible? The main obstacle is it's super temping to just write down all of Kurzweil's predictions, they so incredibly dense in the prose, it's hard to do anything but a close paraphrase. I think we need a format which includes only a sampling of his predictions, but presents them in an interesting and useful way, and which includes enough commentary and criticism to be balanced. The article should be about the predictions, not an article just conveying the predictions. Does anyone have ideas how to do this? Or even just an opinion on whether it can be done, or whether it is worth it? Silas Ropac (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)