Talk:Ray Kurzweil/Archive 3

Hofstadter criticism
I propose that the text below be removed because it's a personal attack, not justified, and without real content. It was a casual remark by Dr. Hofstadter during an interview. COI disclosure: I work for Ray as editor of KurzweilAI.

Cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter has said of Kurzweil's and Hans Moravec's books: "It’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. It's an intimate mixture of rubbish and good ideas, and it's very hard to disentangle the two, because these are smart people; they're not stupid."[76] Amaraangelica (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaraangelica (talk • contribs) 08:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are making 4 claims here towards removing the quote:
 * casual remark - it was in an extended interview in American Scientist as part of a 1200 word answer that very broadly and deeply criticizes all of Singularity related thinking, by someone who has engaged people in that community repeatedly. I don't think that qualifies as casual.
 * personal attack - if you dissect the quote it says only that Kurzweil is a smart person, the harsh condemnation is exclusively about his (and Moravec's) books and ideas, which are fair game to attack.
 * not justified - I'm relatively new here, but I don't believe "justified" is our call to make, Hofstadter is giving his opinion. Please someone who knows more about WP policies chime in here.
 * without real content - this deserves consideration, see WP:WEIGHT. The claim is that the books contain both "solid and good" ideas (from the interview outside this quote) as well as "ideas that are crazy" in such a way that it's hard to tell them apart. I believe this is a subtle enough point it has value, especially given the source, a Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award winning author who has a PhD in physics and at least one very influential book (GEB) and who has engaged the Singularity community in debates before. He's not just a drive-by critic. Plus many people are skeptical and critical of Kurzweil's ideas, so including one of his harsher critics kind of brackets the range of criticism that is out there. This leads me to conclude the quote has real content.
 * But I'd be interested to hear what other people think. Certainly it is justified and valid to question the inclusion of the quote given the language, so I'm glad it is being discussed. Silas Ropac (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * casual remark: - Remarks made in conversational interviews are often casual, i.e., not well thought out, compared to deliberately written statements.
 * without real content - I would like to rephrase my comment as "without real support." Hofstadter himself does not provide any support for the rude words in the quote with actual arguments, so this appears to amount to a lack of any substantial comment that would enlighten the reader. In addition, dismissing the ideas of respected scientists like Kurzweil and Moravec as "dog's excrements" without arguments amounts to hate speech. Of course, the Wikipedia article should include thoughtful criticism, but this is not thoughtful criticism. There are critics, perhaps including Hofstadter himself on other occasions, who have formulated their criticism in a much more thoughtful and civilized way. Amaraangelica (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Remarks made in interviews are sometimes not well thought out. Remarks made in books are sometimes not well thought either. Interviews published in reliable sources are valid references in WP. We cannot enact a special ban on interviews for this page alone, in contrast to all of Wikipedia.
 * This is the criticism section of the article. Opinions are completely valid in the criticism section, if presented with due weight. Silas Ropac (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with Amaraangelica, this Hofstadter's quote should be removed immediately. Even respectable writers insult their peers with unacceptable words sometimes, we are all humans after all, but libel and profanity don't belong on Wikipedia.Giulioprisco (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, this kinds of smears both Kurzweil and Hofstadter at the same time. There are likely many more witty or well-thought out criticisms that could be used instead. Anders Sandberg (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The criticism is valid and insightful. However the language and imagery is crude. I would suggest a compromise, simply trim the quote to leave only the second sentence: "It's an intimate mixture of rubbish and good ideas, and it's very hard to disentangle the two, because these are smart people; they're not stupid." This gets across 100% of the criticism, and readers are free to read the source for the more colorful version. There is no objectionable language in the trimmed quote, it gets across a valid and noteworthy point by a respected thinker who as put time and effort into studying the Singularity movement. Silas Ropac (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see "valid and insightful criticism" in this case. Valid and insightful criticism is supported by arguments (e.g. "I disagree with this idea because..."), but there are no arguments here. In the interview Hofstadter says that he doesn't like Moravec and Kurzweil, but never bothers to state what he is objecting to, using crude and offensive terms like "dog excrement" (twice) and "rubbish" instead of arguments. I loved GEB, and I know that Hofstadter's debating style is usually much more mature than in this unfortunate example. I suggest to rephrase the passage as follows: Cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter has said that, in Kurzweil's and Hans Moravec's books, there is an intimate mixture of good and questionable ideas, and it's very hard to disentangle the two.[76] (The content is the same, but the form is civilized.) Giulioprisco (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Winged Cat removed the "objectional" part of the quote. The remaining quote is fine. Your version is a close paraphrase which distorts his meaning. You change "rubbish" to "questionable": Hofstadter does not believe the "bad" parts of Kurzweil's ideas are questionable he believes they are rubbish. No he doesn't go into details about his reasoning in the interview, but he does in Moore's Law, Artificial Evolution, and the Fate of Humanity as it appears is Perspectives on Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, some 30 pages long. I have read only excerpts. Why not quote the article then? Because in the interview he sums up his feelings succinctly, and the interview is in a reliable source, and it WP's job to present other people's views accurately, particularly in criticism sections. Silas Ropac (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the interview he sums up his feelings succinctly, yes, perhaps a bit too succinctly, since it is only insults without arguments. As Anders Sandberg says above, this quote does not present Hofstadter in a very good light, and I don't think he deserves that. Giulioprisco (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote is not "all insults", there are five claims in the quote:
 * Kurzweil's books contain some rubbish
 * Kurzweil's books contain some good ideas
 * It's hard to tell the good ideas apart from the rubbish
 * Kurzweil is smart
 * Kurzweil is not stupid
 * That's fair criticism, it's not "hate speech" or "libel" at all, far from it. Consider a variation of the quote in another context: "Some of president Obama's policies are good, others are rubbish. It's hard to tell them apart since Obama is a smart guy". That's completely legitimate criticism, and it's not empty either it's making a very specific accusation. Compare to Myers quote later on in the same section, "Kurzweil does not understand basic biology", that is about Kurzweil-the-person not his books or ideas, and it's pretty clearly false. It would be libel if it caused Kurzweil harm, which I'm sure it didn't. Silas Ropac (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I wrote Dr. Hofstadter and asked him: We are having a discussion about your quote from an American Scientist interview in 2008:

"It'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. It's an intimate mixture of rubbish and good ideas, and it's very hard to disentangle the two, because these are smart people; they're not stupid."

Was this just a casual remark that maybe you don't stand by today? Do you care if it is attributed to you now, as opposed to maybe a tamer more formal version? And he wrote back: "The quote from a few years back still expresses my feelings quite accurately." I hesitated to share this because of course I can't prove it for one thing, but also it seems murky whether private correspondence can be used in discussions, since we know it cannot be used as a source. But I asked on teahouse and got 3 interesting replies including one from Jimbo, that to my ears said we can and should use unpublished material to guide us, if it is considered trustworthy, even if it cannot be used a source in the article itself.

So Hofstadter is fine with it, even the full quote. I'm not going to argue to expand the quote back to its full form, however, I think the trimmed one conveys the crux of the criticism while still being strongly worded, and it is less gross. Silas Ropac (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

NPV?
Why is the Neutral Point of View of the Criticism section questioned as of last month? I'm more curious than anything else, but as I'm researching Kurzweil for a course I'd be happy to do some digging into whatever is deemed problematic and see what kind of sources could be found. ☾ Luna (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Fluous had in mind but the original banner said "Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material" before it was re-written as one banner. WP:CRITS says avoid Criticism sections entirely. I do think think the crit section is a bit rambling now. Like just one random criticism after another. Maybe the Predictions section should have the prediction related criticism? Could any others find home elsewhere? If not disperse could the criticism be grouped better into what they are criticizing? I question the How to Create a Mind paragraph because that's covered in the article on the book, why including this one criticism from one book when he has many books with many criticisms? And the John Gray thing seems like a salient observation, but not actually a criticism. Finally and least importantly I think Reception is a kind of silly heading for a biographical article, I think books gets a reception not so much people. But I can't think of a replacement right now. Silas Ropac (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually think that criticism makes sense as the heading term. I mean, right or wrong, Kurzweil is certainly controversial, and is the subject of a great deal of criticism. But I agree that it is rambling now. As I was looking at the Hofstadter quote, especially in the larger context of the article, Hofstadter wasn't being too eloquent about what it was that was so objectionable. He says at various points that it's murky, that he has no good way of knowing what's good and what's bad. But if we compare that to his talk at the Singularity Summit at Stanford in 2008, he does seem to get more specific: "It's hard to take seriously the idea that he's going to be immortal. ... The idea of utility foglets, just little molecules that will self-assemble into anything that will change from the Taj Mahal into a mountain range in a split second ... I mean it's a science fiction scenario at the most extreme level. To me these things seem like speculation way beyond anything that I'm willing to accept. I feel like my ability to believe any of it is marred by these admixtures." Perhaps it would be better to tease out some of the specific things that Hofstadter (and others) find so objectionable (as in the list above), and then perhaps give more of a paraphrased list? ☾ Luna (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Reception" is the heading I was questioning, does that apply to people? Just sounds like a book or movie thing to me. Would be nice to see a list of all headings used in all biographical articles on WP, just to see ideas and know what is common and uncommon. I think the Hofstadter quote sums his views up nicely. I think the criticism section overall needs work though, as did Fluous apparently. 23:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did read your exchange above about the Hofstadter quote. What I meant was less that the quote is a poor summary of his ideas, but more that if someone here is worried about NPOV, one way to clarify things would be to move to more specificity. What I mean is, it's not just Hofstadter who critiques Kurzweil for his more outlandish claims. I might be able to draft up something which centered more around a list of the most commonly-shared critiques, and a list of the people who share them. It could start with a list of common examples of things that people think Kurzweil is doing. Lots of people find the way he reads his data to be dishonest, whether intentionally so or not. PZ Myers and arguably more authoritative sources have all pointed this out, and it covers a lot of ground. Lots of people critique Kurzweil for being too optimistic about his claims. I'm thinking of Jaron Lanier, Daniel Dennett, Doug Hofstadter, etc., all of them think he's at least a bit too blithe in reading such a sunny, seemingly inevitable utopian future in his Singularity. There's also anxiety about his "kookery," the fact that he takes hundreds of supplements daily, that he wants to resurrect his father, that he might have himself cryogenically frozen if he doesn't live long enough to see the Singularity, etc. I might break these critiques up into three major categories: (1) misrepresentation of data, either intentionally or not; (2) naively optimistic about the impact of technology on human life; and (3) apparently "religious," outlandish, or new agey behavior that undermines his authority as an inventor and computer scientist in the eyes of some. Maybe I could sandbox out a rewrite of that section based on that division? ☾ Luna (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked Fluous on his talk page if he had any ideas, since he flagged the article, maybe he will respond. I think organizing the criticism section topically makes sense in theory. It reads now like a bunch of different people tacked on their favorite criticism, which is probably what happened. So I think a new section would only improve the article, so yes go for it.
 * But I guess the danger with a Criticism section is a POV Fork where rather write a balanced article people tacitly agree to segregate the two viewpoints. In this case some editors work to keep the article itself glowing and criticism free, while others pile on criticisms in the one place they are allowed. In this regard I don't know if even a beautifully written Criticism section resolves the NPOV concern. Integrating the criticism into the article is one of those things that's easy to say and hard to do. The predictions section could obviously have criticism about his predictions, but not sure there is a home for most of the rest. At any rate, you would probably things in the right direction. Silas Ropac (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the concern now. I'll give some thought about the alternative, then, of working those topical criticisms into the body of the article. While I can see the logic behind keeping the criticism in the body of the article, it does seem like Kurzweil is a bit different. He's a specifically controversial figure. One might go so far as to say that his controversy significantly contributes to his notability. I wonder if it would have been all that newsworthy to people outside Silicon Valley, for example, if Google had appointed someone else as Director of Engineering. Almost all the articles on his appointment that I've read are specifically drawing out what makes him controversial. So in that sense, it does seem somewhat reasonable to have a full section devoted to this aspect of his persona. In any case, I have to put this off until I actually finish my final papers. :) ☾ Luna (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * hey, good luck on your papers! as far as the criticism section goes, yeah, what everyone else said. if you want to take down the notice, feel free. but it would be good if the section is cleaned up as you guys talked about. Fluous (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixing one of the references
I do not know how to edit the references, so I cannot correct one mistake I noticed. The link to

81. ^ Transcript of debate over feasibility of near-term AI (moderated by Rodney Brooks): "Gelernter, Kurzweil debate machine consciousness". KurzweilAI.net.

is incorrect, it links to http://www.edge.org/discourse/jaron_manifesto.html#brooks but it should link to http://www.kurzweilai.net/gelernter-kurzweil-debate-machine-consciousness-2 I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extent00 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Chronology?
This doesn't make sense to me:

"Kurzweil's next major business venture began in 1978, when Kurzweil Computer Products began selling a commercial version of the optical character recognition computer program. LexisNexis was one of the first customers, and bought the program to upload paper legal and news documents onto its nascent online databases. Kurzweil sold his company to Lernout & Hauspie. Following the bankruptcy of the latter, the system became a subsidiary of Xerox formerly known as Scansoft and now as Nuance Communications, and he functioned as a consultant for the former until 1995."

L&H's bankrupcy was in 2001, so how can 1995 be "following"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.114.181 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Mispronounced name
The reader of the spoken article consistently mispronounces Kurzweil's name even though the pronunciation is given at the beginning of the article. 69.135.193.98 (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Ray Kurzweil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.mit.edu/invent/a-winners/a-kurzweil.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/kurzweil.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=%2Farticles%2Fart0467.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=news_single.html%3Fid%3D6360
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.qsinano.com/pdf/ForbesWolfe_NanotechReport_July2006.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0%2C1286%2C66585%2C00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec12/immortal_07-10.html
 * Added tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_2001_Feb/ai_70910777/pg_3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.longnow.org/seminars/salt-0200406-sterling/salt-0200406-sterling.mp3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsweek.com/id/197812
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/singularitarianism.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://awards.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3622009&srt=all&aw=145&ao=GMHOPPER
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017185018/http://www.techfestival.org/past-honorees/ to http://www.techfestival.org/past-honorees/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.mit.edu/invent/a-winners/a-kurzweil.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.mit.edu/invent/a-prize.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.clarkefoundation.org/news/042009.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.di.net/about/senior_fellows/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Any non-spammy sources about his supplement gig?
So some marketing firm just stopped by to promote a "supplement" site with Kurzweil's name on it. Shame. At any rate, if there's a non-commercial source about the supplements (WP:MEDRS if possible), it wouldn't be a bad idea to include so one has a fuller picture. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Appearance in the documentary 'Do you trust this computer?'
User deemed this edit too trivial for this page. Instead of arguing the other way, I have added him to the list of interviewees on Do You Trust This Computer? Anyone who feels this should be different is welcome to present their view here. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

hagiography?
admittedly, it might just be me, but 90% of the article reads like hagiography. i was relieved that some room for criticism of his ideas was provided at the end, but i couldn't help but think as i read through that it would be nice to have some of the frontloading of his theories (they aren't knowledge, and it's odd to see phrases along the lines of, "he knows," regarding future events) either tempered with the use of more apt verbs like "speculate," or balanced with legitimate critiques when they are introduced. -- chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.211.171 (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The lede especially seems more like a long list of things he has done to make he seem awesome, rather than try to clearly establish what he is notable for, which is what it should be doing. Ashmoo (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also come to see for what things he is notable and I found only two useful things: involvement in OCR (he only apply already existing OCR in specific way) and Kurzweil synth. That's it. I also do have felling that entire article is simple praise of Ray. --Calimero (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He gets a lot of press for his AI and singularity speculations, which warrants note. The article could still do with toning down - David Gerard (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've come back three years later and see nothing has improved. Ashmoo (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Plural vs. singular
Currently in American English "'whatever hormone' levels" remains plural. As the language drifts, some nouns (especially outside the Americas) are shifting from plural to singular. This is an American English article. Looking through the web at various articles about hormone levels, I see many examples of plural... "HCG levels rise " rather than "HCG levels rises ", etc. I'll change this back in a couple of days unless you find some reason it should be singular. One way would be to rework the sentence so it does not refer to a plural, if you are interested. Shajure (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In this instance, the "levels" are not chemical, but anatomical. They act in concert.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * '"levels" are not chemical' - what can that even mean? Hormones... are... chemicals in the body.
 * In any event, a quick google search should net a number of hormone levels being pluar. Can you find anything in the press to support this usage of "hormone levels" being singular?  If not, I'll revert. Thanks.Shajure (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a difficult construction that should be reworded if possible, as it is can be hard for ESL or others to parse, but Quisqualis is correct here, "higher levels of the human neocortex were the enabling factor" is correct, and "factors" is not semantically correct in this context. Similar example from an American English source: "it’s not clear that Corbyn’s leftwing policies... were the factor that lost him the election." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

MIRI Board?
I don't think he's on it anymore: https://intelligence.org/team/#board - Scarpy (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Criticism by Ted Kaczynski.
Ted Kaczynski criticized Ray Kurzweil's idea of the achievement of technological immortality in his 2016 book, Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How. I think it is good to introduce Kaczynski's criticism but my contribution is reverted several times without apparent reason. I gave the source. What is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.80.80 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You didn't specify/properly cited your paragraph per WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:BLP as person is still living. A09090091 (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did cite my paragraph, which is footnote 83. 100.12.80.80 (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed you did. Good work there.  Then you added wp:undue content.  The article link is right there, those interested in the details can read it there (I am guessing you made sure the content is there).  The criticism is given.  In fact, the entire criticism section is massively wp:undue... heavily weighted to provide attention/sales to the critics.  wp:NPOV is most definitely absent.Shajure (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

massively POV criticism section
Unless there is an objection, I am going to collapse the criticism section into 2 sentences, keeping all the sources. It is wildly unbalanced. IMO much of the rest of the article is unbalanced "the other way" and needs work... I am just not willing to do that work.Shajure (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC) One sentence for the attacks on RK himself, another for the attacks on his opinions. Both will be short.Shajure (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, criticism how it is now is good, notable and valuable, and any further trim is not needed. In general is it more then welcome in this type of case about someone too much in and about futurism, predictions and so on. This is not a support blog or someone pov pushing page. 109.92.253.244 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully others will not agree. It is *woefully* one-sided.Shajure (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Templated the section.Shajure (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe some editors got something wrong, this is not Ray Kurzweil personal website or some fan made blog, it is one encyclopedia article and criticism is normal and that how it is now seems pretty good, notable and valuable. Also not "one sided" at all considering the content of the whole article.109.92.253.244 (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)