Jump to content

Talk:Ray Kurzweil/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Beliefs

Dear all, This is an article about a scientific man and about science. We can disagree on the quality and value of his theories, but beliefs have no place here. Please refrain from using the words "belief", "believes", etc. 81.37.173.195 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So, in applicable sections, shall we talk about his 'spiritual thoughts' then? Heh, I do get your meaning though (and wow, I'm responding to a 2 year old post). tehmikuji (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

smartboards

"smartboards, interactive whiteboards with a connection to the Internet and learning software and activities are commonly used in schools in developed nations.[30]" The only source given for this is an american company making these "smartboards". The source doesn't say anything about these boards being "commonly used in schools in developed nations". I don't know which colleges/high schools you've gone to, but all the time I hear about these smartboards being used, it's in a purely experimental way. Unless there is some true sources saying that smartboards is actually "commonly used in schools in developed nations", the text should be changed. I believe that smartboards are very rare, even in highly developed nations. Ran4 00:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't in relevance to the article itself, but I, being a student myself, heard from a teacher shortly after we started using smartboards that there was a major spike in their usage recently--about 60-something percent. Of course, whether this is true or not, I don't know. -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.166 (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


I work as technology support staff within the University of San Diego. White boards along with interactive screens with annotation overlay (think electronic transparencies) capabilities are common within this university and others around the U.S. 192.195.154.31 (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Old talk

Can anyone verify the information in this article? It sounds too much like a blurb. -- mailto:c1tk@c1tk.cjb.net

Also, he's on CNBC now with his new book, diong promo, and it looks like he's gone half-nutty! --24.103.207.38 16:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ray will also be on the radio program "Here & Now" on Monday, August 1, 2005, at noon. That's on WBUR at 90.9 FM in Boston, but assuming you won't be in the area, you can listen to it on their web site. http://www.here-now.org

I just got his book and it looks like he's gone 95% nutty....I think some of the stuff he recommends is downright dangerous (certain supplement megadosing) and or of dubious value (chelation)69.228.240.57 04:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Book difference

If I have 'The Singularity Is Near' and 'Fantastic Voyage', is it worth getting his older books? From our current descriptions and reviews I can google it does look to me like TSIN is the new version of the 'Ages...' books, and FV is the new '100% Solution...'. Am I wrong? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


Age of Spiritual Machines might still be worthwhile; 100% solution and Age of Intelligent Machines are more or less superceded. I recommend your local library.--SamLL 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've read 'Singularity' and both 'age's, I wholeheartedly recommend them if you want a little more background about his ideas. Darkeye11547 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Synthesisers

I am more familiar with the Kurzweil of musical instrument fame, and I note that the article currently does a good job of summarising this aspect of his career; Kurzweil's breakthrough products were high-end sample-playback devices and not, strictly speaking, synthesisers. The impression I get is that the man is along the lines of all those retired US Air Force radar operators who believe in chemtrails i.e. initial success in several complex technical fields has led him to believe that he is an expert in another field entirely, the field of people. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

-=-=-

I would like to add to this that sampling theory was known years before we had practical ways to implement it for the use of musical instruments. Also, the article stated that musicians were not able to distinguish between a real grand piano and the Kurtzweil rompler. I can tell you that most skilled musicians these days could in fact hear a distinct difference between a sampled piano and a real one. Some modern instruments are very capable and make the distinction very small, if not inperceivable, but back then it was a different story. For a reason as to why people couldnt distinguish the sampler from the real thing one can argue that people were awe-struck by the new capabilities and were eager to put aside the flaws. Furthermore, people did not have enough reference to make the distinction as there was very little to compare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.224.111 (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the above is a very insightful comment and raises excellent points. I now apologize for wasting this space. tehmikuji (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Kurzweil Kriticisms?

(sorry for the cute title) Clearly Kurzweil has gone overboard with his timeline for how rapidly things will progress in the early 21st century. I recall seeing him in an interview with Leo Laporte on The ScreenSavers a couple years ago and he was insistent that by 2009 there will be some kind of immersive VR computing environment, presumably with lasers that paint images onto the retina. Possibly expirementally and still crude, but I seriously doubt it'd be mainstream that soon. Nice, high res. OLED's are about as much as I'd expect by then. Maybe he's retracted his predictions' timeline since then, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's not the case. At the rate that he's going in November of 2009 he'll be asked why his predictions have yet to come true and he'll reply that there's still another month left in the year.

Anyway, my point is that while his long term predictions may be accurate, his timeline is screwed up and this article should probably reflect that criticism, albeit in a more gentle manner than I just did.

Well, cite your sources and be bold.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's 2008, and they do exist: see Virtual retinal display. But of course they are quite expiremental, and no one has really heard of them. Maybe in the next couple of years there will be an (expensive) commercial version. Torgo (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinion on his ideas should NOT be reflected in this article. Wikipedia is a none-biased site, this article should not be biased against him. If you can find any quotable critisism of his ideas then by all means include this in the article but otherwise, no. On a further note, where is the proof that this mans colleagues are frightened by his 'dystopian' view of the future? --

It could even be argued that 'Dystopian' is the wrong word to describe his vision of the future (As I've read it in 'The Age of Spiritual Machines'. If you know of predictions whose date has past that are false, or something a bit more telling than a 'doubt' about one yet to come then we'd be happy to see your data. Darkeye11547 18:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Kurzweil at ASTD

I recently attended the American Society for Training and Development conference. Kurzweil was a speaker. I'd never heard of him before. My first impression was that he is a genius -- with rapid-fire ideas beyond anything I could imagine. Sort of a cross between Stephen Hawking and Woody Allen. He predicted that if we live 20 more years, we'll be in an era where human lifespan is exponentially and artificially increased. Hmmm...I was hoping to retire in 20 years! lol.

Removed the editorial sentence:

Kurzweil is a highly perceptive individual with a genius for intuiting the bigger picture, so whether you agree with his projections or believe he has gone over the edge, one should listen to what he has to say.

Unfortunately lots of genius's have been wrong, because you possess great ability, does not mean all your ideas and predictions will be accurate. As with all things coming from human minds, some will hit, others will miss. He's ignoring also the exponential complexity of technology that will balance out the exponential growth. As we solve problems, we take on even BIGGER problems even more complicated and time consuming.

Look at microchip design for instance the Pentium 4 was suppose to reach 10 Ghz, it barely reached over 3 ghz. There are people just as smart as Ray at Intel and other technological megacorporations who do not share his crank visions of the future because they understand the manufacturing processes and the enormous complexities.

For instance the laws of diminishing returns - I read and article about doubling current processor speed by some engineers and they were talking that a 'simple' 2 times increase in performance creates *four fold* increase in complexity.

Just three questions:
1) What do you mean by all that, perhaps that you're smarter than Kurzweil? (Ha!)
2) Who are you? and
3) Is it really that difficult to sign a post in a talk page?
--AVM (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurzweil's niche

Kurzweil occupies a very specific niche with a half a dozen of other Big Idea People. There ought to be a category, but I'm not quite sure how to describe it. Does anyone have a better way to describe this? And is such thing encyclopedic enough? Guys like this are vaulable even when they're wrong. They are a form of Public Intellectual, but in a sceintific/futurist sense. — KC Pleasantville 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My dog can come up with lots of big ideas too. It's not even a difficult process — pick some popular buzzwords, and use them to tell fairy tales. The difference between the real intellectuals and the cranks is that the intellectuals actually try to get their stuff right. Bi 11:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
But Kurzweil is also a brilliant inventor. He's that kind of "Big Idea" person, like DaVinci or Edison. Have you even read any of his books? He may be wrong, but he's no crank. Torgo (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
LEONARDO! Da Vinci is not a last name. And Edison wasn't a big picture guy, he was a technological cargo cultist, like the aliens in... iirc it's Tommyknockers. Or, in fact, a lot of futurists (including those who predicted super clockwork and super steam power in the 18th and 19th century and missed every advance that was feasible). Like Kurzweil. Snapdragonfly (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Medical Notes

According to his book "The Singularity is Near" Ray takes over 250 supplements (pills) a day and recieves a half-dozen intravenous therapies each week (basically nutrional supplements delivered directly into the bloodstream, therby bypasssing his GI tract) all in an effort to delay the effects of aging. This might be a humorous start to a trivia section. Jdw052 09:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This may be something to put into the biography. We don't want to create a trivia section (see WP:AVTRIV). It would also need to be presented in a neutral tone and not as humor (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR), unless you are referencing someone else stating that it is humorous that Kurzweil takes these steps. In that case, you could state that so in so states that such is humorous. Morphh (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is so one-sided...

...that it's not funny. Given that Kurzweil makes so many wild claims, surely there must be some criticism of them? Bi 11:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the lack of criticism shows the truth and validity of what Kurzweil preaches! 205.241.11.6 22:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, no. There's criticism, but it's stashed in another article. I guess that goes to show how "true" and "valid" Kurzweil's pie-in-the-sky claims are... Bi 08:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's one-sided. There's tonnes of Kurzweil criticism from all sorts of perspectives, but this article is B-class, and it reflects mostly a simple restatement of his views on topics such as the Singularity and Transhumanism. Most of the criticisms of these ideas, including criticisms specifically aimed at Kurzweil's hypotheses, are listed in those articles. 216.129.211.105 04:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a biography, not an article on the validity of particular topics believed by Kurzweil. Any criticism in the article should be criticism of Ray Kurzweil and not about any particular topic he chooses to advocate. The criticism of the topic should be discussed in the article on the topic. Morphh (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Consuming large amounts of water is necessary for flushing toxins out of the body, and alkaline water allows the body to preserve important enzymes used for neutralizing acidic metabolic wastes."

"Large amounts" is vague language. How much is a "large amount"? Indeed, large enough amounts of water can cause sickness and death. The reference to "toxins" here smacks of trendy pseudoscience. The claim about alkaline water is pseudoscience and should not be stated as fact. http://www.chem1.com/CQ/ionbunk.html This website debunks the "alkaline water" myth. WaterTart (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Life, inventions and awards

This section includes much repetition - e.g. it says much the same stuff about Kurzweil Music Systems twice. It is also too long.Ben Finn 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)



Err - Did Kurzweil invent the latter part of the 20th century and we just didn't notice?

The entire biography reads like a publicity statement.

203.217.83.91 (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Legless


the Awards section particularly is tagged as being of disputed neutrality. I would think that much at least could be independently verified (especially given the prodigious amount of citation in that section). He either received the awards or not. --WhiteDragon (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this article written by Ray's PR agency?

This Wikipedia article sounds like it was written by Ray Kurzweil's PR agency.

Ray Kurzweil receives a lot of criticism from many groups. In particular, Ray is not really mentioned or quoted much in the scientific community. He mostly markets himself whenever he is trying to sell a new book on the "Singularity". It's funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.13.198 (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote most of the article, and I do not work for Kurzweil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egermino (talk • contribs) 03:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, your first 100 edits or so were on Kurzweil. Say, if you don't work for him: are you him? Quiname (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I indented your response. I would point out that this was posted up in 2007, and that the editor has not edited under that account since September 2010. It is doubtful that the editor will see this and respond, and the edits from 2007 are probably not of great importance now anyway. The current content needs help, as do a number of associated articles. wp:talk, wp:assume good faith, wp:pillars... all good reading.Shajure (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Most Promising Technology

Besides nano- and bio-technology, Kurzweil has named the most promising current approach to artificial cognitive systems as genetic programming. See Kurzweil's presentation at the Singularity Summit at Stanford (online) for one such statement. Further looking into GP: John Koza, Peter Nordin, and "Robots that Dream of Being Better" [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfgay (talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Incredibly biased article

I am flabbergasted by how one side this article is. Seems that on Wikipedia, when an author fuels geekish fantasies , he automatically rise above all criticism and the 'no bias' rule doesn't apply anymore. This article reminds me of the ridiculous 'optimus' LED keyboard fiasco, where for a long time no one was allowed to call it 'vapourware' because it was just 'too cool' to be criticized :D

It's hilarious to see the reasons given on this page: 1) "Wikipedia doesn't allow bias, so there can be no criticism of Kurzweil on this page." Funny, I see criticism of other speakers everywhere on wikipedia. Since when is a little section called 'criticism' considered 'bias' anyway? 2) "There are no recorded critics of Kurzweil". LOL actually, there are tons - google 'kurzweil criticism' and enjoy the hundreds of links. 3) "This is a 'b-grade' article anyway, we're just dumping some basic info here". Ah ok then. I'll just shut up then.

This also reminds me a lot of the Kevin Warwick article, which only list 2 lines of criticism when there is in fact so much to be said about these futurists 'predictions'. It's also really disturbing to see that the geeks will mercilessly mock anything that has to do with say, religion or the paranormal, then actively defend their own Nostradamus wannabes. The mind boggles.

And before you say 'well this is wikipedia, why don't you write the article yourself?', well, no, it can't be done, because it would be taken out immediately by whoever wrote this first and monitors it, then I would put it back, then they would delete it etc... then 3 reverse (or whatever it's called) rule would come into effect and I would lose. Basically you can 'win' wikipedia if you have enough time / resources on your hand. It's tragic really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.204.39 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reliable secondary source that criticises Kurzweil (and not just the Transhumanist prediction) that is not presented in the article, then please supply it. Random criticism, original research, or unreliable sources will not be acceptable and biographies are much more sensitive to negative material. The Wikipedia policies will make sure proper criticism is included. Morphh (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should mention original research: This article is full of it. Original research means making your own claims and drawing your own conclusions between facts. That's what we have in the "accuracy of claims" sections. People don't seem to understand this subtle difference. Wikipedia only allows the inclusion of previously published conclusions and synthesis of information: You include other people's claims in the article, then you cite the claim. What is NOT allowed is stringing facts together into claims of your own creation, and then citing references to the validity of those facts. (I'm sure plenty of people who read what I just said won't even understand the difference, and that's a major problem here)

I'm a fan of Kurzweil and have read both The Singularity Is Near and The Age Of Spiritual Machines (as well as the essay "The Law of Accelerating Returns" on his site - a few times, actually!), but this article...well...it sucks, and should be aggressively pruned back to the handful of paragraphs it used to be TheBilly (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Overflowing with original research

In line with the discussion above, I've tagged this article with the "original research" template. This article, specifically the "accuracy of predictions" sections(s), is full of it (in more ways than one). It's not OK to make up your own interpretation by connecting fact A to fact B. If you can't find a respected author, journalist, etc, who has written about the accuracy of Kurzweil's predictions, then it's not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm a fan of his writings, but I'm also a fan of quality, and this has turned into a shameful behemoth of an article. TheBilly (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I've done 95% of the changes to this article since July. I was not aware of the original research rule. I'm glad you guys brought it up because I want to make this article as good as possible, and therefore I want to know about any errors or deficiencies. I would immediately remove the "Accuracy of Predictions" section, but I want to know first if you guys think there are any parts of it that could be salvaged and left in the article.

      • newbie*** While it may not need to be part of a "biography" page, an "accuracy of predictions" section is central to understanding the meaning of Ray Kurzweil's work, as he's made it central himself. The section should include all predictions and the date made, and as the date comes and goes, wikipedia can be updated on how accurately the predictions have been fulfilled. Any vagueness in predictions should be noted- perhaps Kurzweil can go on record on any seriously controversial/problematic claims. Many of Kurzweil's predictions (and his business ventures) do come from his intuition, but many also come from his knowledge of history and from plotting future results of historical trends, for instance this chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg this chart collates the work of 15 respected researchers. All critics of Kurzweil's work should be collected, and their observations objectively reported, and we will see if history bears them out.*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkleobb (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I disagree that this article should go back to the way it was before I started modifying it. This is for two reasons. First, most of the article was simply copied and pasted from Kurzweil's company webpage, which must violate some Wikipedia rule against plagiarism. Second, it was way too short and incoherent, thus failing to do justice to a very accomplished man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egermino (talk • contribs) 17:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see, I didn't check the edit history too carefully, so I didn't realize it was mostly by one person. I thought it maybe got out of control as fans collectively added facts about him :)

Well, I know it can be difficult to see all your hard work destroyed, and it is admirable that you contributed all the effort to provide all these sources, but there's a number of problems with this section as far as Wikipedia's guidelines go. As I mentioned above, it's not acceptable to use facts to drawn your own conclusions, even if these conclusions seem reasonable. This qualifies as OR as "new synthesis" of existing information. In order to salvage these statements, you'd have to pick the most highly publicized of these and find third parties that critiqued or made mention of these statements. We're here to aggregate the existing, previously known and published knowledge about each topic into a high quality article. Neutral statements about his claims, but not their accuracy, would much more easily qualify for inclusion, because there has been plenty of publicity about his claims. He's had articles in magazines, appeared on at least one speculative science show, and was even in a segment on The Daily Show ("Future Shock", where Samantha Bea asks him "....so, I'm gonna be able to F*** robots, right?")

The second problem is NPOV. It seems like it would violate the NPOV requirement to make the claim at all that his predictions were accurate. There might be some people who think so, but there's ple-nty of other people who think he's a whackjob. Opinions on Kurzweil are pretty much divided into two camps: "He's a visionary" and "He's a crank". NPOV guidelines say that you should present both (or all) sides equally. I'm not sure that all his claims have gotten substantial attention from both sides, so I don't think most of his claims are worthy of inclusion; simply saying "Here's what he said and here's when he was right" is VERY slanted, and grossly violates NPOV.

For a good example, think of Nostradamus. His statements are highly contentious, but because they're hundreds of years old, they've also gotten substantial attention by proponents, critics, and scholars. We can write about what the major interpretations are and the reactions to them, but not "in X case he was right, in Y case he was wrong" because there is no agreement he was ever right or wrong. Kurzweil's prognostication should get the Nostradamus treatment.

Lastly, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". A biography article (especially that of a living person) should cover only the most pertinent information. Sometimes, there's a lot of significant things to say, and so the fact that an article is very long does not make it bad or good (check out some of the biographies on List of articles every Wikipedia should have) But It's simply poor form to include every little thing he said or did. So, again, I think we should limit ourselves to the most publicized, celebrated, contested, or criticized statements.

So, I firmly believe that in accordance with Wikipedia's various guidelines on quality and style, most of this section should be pruned back. But where we can cite his most talked about claims in a neutral, dispassionate way that doesn't advance a position, we can still salvage some of his speculative claims, because these are what he's gotten most known for in recent years, so they are highly relevant to an article on him

To help you with citing his claims, I'd suggest articles in the magazine Wired. That's where I first heard about him. There have been numerous articles about him, freely accessible online dating back many years, which make mention of his claims, including a copy of Bill Joy's "Why The Future Doesn't Need US". Just search google for kurzweil site:wired.com (lengthy comment for a lengthy section, lolsry) TheBilly (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will check for articles from authoritative publications that have reviewed Kurzweil's predictions and will include them in the "Accuracy of Predictions" section. Hopefully, their findings will overlap with what I have already written, so no work will be lost. In any case, after I have made a thorough but reasonable search for reviews, I will remove any remaining material in that section that stands as essentially my own synthesis of information.

I take it that your second statement regarding the need for conciseness refers to the "Future Predictions" section. I admit that it has grown to a monstrous size, and I was starting to question its appropriateness privately. I could simply cut the text out and paste the different segments into the Wikipedia articles pertaining to each of Kurzweil's books (i.e.--"Age of Intelligent Machines" future predictions are pasted into the "Age of Intelligent Machines" Wikipedia entry), and then leave a much shorter summary of Kurzweil's predicted technology milestones in its place.

Do these sound like acceptable solutions to the problems with the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egermino (talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that accuracy of predictions needs to be cut down substantially in size. Using only evaluations from reliable sources (i.e. no original research) is the correct way to do this. It's also undeniable that the article is biased in favor of Kurzweil. It needs to include more published criticism, in terms of reported failed predictions as well as other areas. Superm401 - Talk 07:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Innacurate predictions (for 2009), all taken from Age of Spiritual Machines, chapter 9 -People typically have a dozen computers on or around them, networked on "body LANs" -most portable computers do not have keyboards -majority of text is created with speech dictation software -animated computer personalities are used in business transactions -three-dimensional chips are common -autonomous nano-engineered machines have been 'demonstrated' -(education) the majority of reading is done on displays -real-time audio translation devices exist commonly used for many language pairs -telephones communication commonly includes high-res video -virtually all communication is encrypted -"Intelligent assistants which combine speech recognition, natural language understanding, problem solving and animated personalities routinely assist with finding information" -the average household has more than 100 computers -intelligent roads which drive your car for you have been deployed -Human musicians routinely jam with cybernetic msucicinas -warfare: "Humans are generally removed from the scene of battle. Warfare is dominated by unmanned airborne devices"

Singularity Prediction Misquote?

"1013 bits of computer memory--roughly the equivalent of the memory space in a single human brain--will cost $1000. " This must be a misquote. 10^13 bits is just over a terabyte - which already costs under $1000 if we're talking about memory as in phsyical storage. Though I have not read his book, perhaps someone who has can clarify this information. Is he referring to main memory / ram etc? It is currently somewhat vague.

Isn't 1013 10 Tb? 500 Gb drives are selling for about $100 these days; $1000 buys 5 Tb- if reality's timetable beats his prediction, i don't see that that would discredit Kurzweil, and he's continually researching and refining his knowledge and ideas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkelobb (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Related here is the misconception that RAM is the equivalent of processing power, and that a neuron is the equivalent of a byte of RAM. Even the simplest model of a biologically plausible neuron will have it acting as a node that sums up its synaptic inputs, compares this to a voltage threshold and sends out a stereotypical spike if it exceeds the threshold.

Add to that a leak to its charge, the extent of which is dependent upon how frequently or infrequently the neuron has previously fired, changes to the strengths of its synaptic inputs, different competing ion channels, the long term effect of neuromodulators and secondary messengers and you end up with an amazingly complex non-linear processing unit. Your average artificial neural network has less processing power than a model of a single biologically plausible neuron. And then there are other features that we are only beginning to understand in terms of the functionality that they provide. A dendritic tree is just as important as the soma of a neuron, some people such as Shepherd suggest that dendritic trees provide logical functions via micro-circuits. And the functionality provided by dendritic spines is still unclear.

And if that is not enough, you need several orders of magnitude more processing power to artificially evolve the parameters that these models use that it takes to run the final optimised model. So rather than comparing the amount of ram available in todays computers to the number of neurons in a human brain, we should be comparing the number of processors available to compute human evolution. Processing speeds may be faster for a CPU, but the connectivity of a single neuron is much greater.

This then raises another question. An adaptive agent needs an environment in which to adapt to. Evolving a robotic agent takes more time as it requires mechanical movement, multiple environments and many generations via many different robots. Evolving via a virtual world will require even more processing power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffykarla (talk • contribs) 00:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

booktv interview notes

Here are some rushed precised notes from Kurzweil's interview on booktv - I just extended the inline to a full cite web with an archiveurl because the original link was dead. The numbers are minutes into the video.

  • 10 mentions Singularity
  • 14 we can reprogram biology ... nanotechnology ...
  • 15 poverty in Asia cut by half in last decade, using technology
  • 16 our knowledge base is doubling every year ... need more intelligent search engines
  • 17 five years ago people didn't use search engines ... we need to get smarter by amplifying our mental ... technology
  • 18 blood cell sized devices into our bloodstream
  • 19 in 25 years we will have these nanobots ... expanding human intelligence ...
    (features with) some modest number of nanometres ... 5, 10, 20 ... the size of a blood cell
  • 21 neural implant for Parkinson's patients (that we have now and that downloads software)
  • 24 overall impact of IT turns out to be predictable ... cost of computing progression
  • 25 my 1995 predictions of IT turned out quite accurate
  • 26 the overall guess is quite predictable
  • 27 In 2020 we will have 1000 dollars a (unclear) ... By 2029 a computer will pass the Turing Test
  • 28 there isn't a simple way to pass the Turing Test without really understanding ...
  • 31 quantum events ... Roger Penrose ... entanglement ... theory tubules ... controversial
  • 32 biological evolution ... can create more complex species ...
  • 33 entities get more knowledgable, capable, beautiful ... all things that were attributed to God
  • 34 I see it as a spiritual process ... love, art, music, science ... The Age of Spiritual Machines
  • 36 Is a machine conscious? Ask it. It says yes. A computer can say yes now. But do you believe it?
  • 37 John Searle
  • 38 and we will have disagreements about these machines
  • 39 phone caller complains that show is allowing crackpot (RK) a platform; that exponential trends claims are unfounded
  • 40 RK replies that evidence shows simple organisms got more and more complex: billion years for DNA;
    Cambrian explosion took 10 millions years; ... homo sapiens took a few million years; tools ... technology ... transistors ... computers
  • 42 we will have full scale molecular nanotechnology in about 20 years
  • 44 Are they little robots? RK: NT is the ability to design techn where key features are nano sized
  • 45 crossover of 2D to 3D chips will be in the teen years
  • 46 100 thousand fold reduction in size mechanical technology of over next 25 years
  • 47 phone caller asks about (1) speech recognition (2) privacy issues (3) government transparency
  • 48 speech recognition is used by surveillance agencies - we don't have enough people to listen to all the conversations
  • 48 demo of simultaneous translation English to German - will be a routine service on phones in the next decade
  • 50 Google showed me English to Arabic and vice et versa - compared well to human translators
  • 52 this realtime virtual conferencing will be routine in the second decade
  • 53 the telephone was the first virtual reality device - before people had to talk face to face
  • 54 virtual is an unfortunate term, as these are real people with real conversations
  • 55 Who is RAMONA? A technology. She is my female alter ego. ... You can be someone else.
  • 56 You can be an actor in these virtual realities.
  • 57 magnetic sensors on my body ... my voice changed to Ramona. Demo showing split screen RK and Ramona.
  • 59 Ramona is a project I intend to continue with.
  • 59 phone caller asks if RK notices an upsurge in acceptance in your ideas in past 6-7 years?
  • 60 RK: Yes. (refers to predictions of exponential growth, iPods, genomes, now cost of DNA base pair is 1 penny)
  • 64 pattern recognition, applied to EKG, financial data,
  • 65 I started about 10 companies commercialising various aspects of pattern recognition
  • 65 shows painting created by computer
  • 66 shows Edison voice recorder
  • 67 picture of RK receiving national medal of technology from Bill Clinton
  • 68 we will have our brain feel like it is another, virtual, environment ... feasible in 20 years
  • 69 people who have influenced RK: parents, junior high school; favourite science writes: Alan Turing; currently reading:;
  • 70 I decided I wanted to be an inventor when I was five.
  • 71 I had this conceit - I knew what I wanted to be.
  • 72 influenced by Tom Swift books
  • 73 the concept that the power of human ideas to change the world impressed me
  • 73 1976 Stevie Wonder was my first customer for the reading device for the blind
  • 74 idea to combine computer control with better musical sounds
  • 75 phone caller from Carolina: Catholic church approve ... (unclear), what do you think?
  • 76 calendar reform?
  • 77 phone caller, physicist: upcoming tech revolution, won't result in human unemployment?
  • 78 RK: 100 years ago "30% in factories 30% on farms; in 100 years it will be 3% on farms"
    "what will happen to all the farm jobs?"
  • 79 RK: we eliminate jobs at bottom of skill ladder and create jobs at the top
  • 80 email question: run risk of tech becoming too human, that may rise up in revolt?
    RK muses on legal rights of machines, situation will be all mixed up: Ultimately they will press for their own legal rights.
  • 82 emotional intelligence is not a little sideshow, it's the most (important?)
  • 83 we will merge with non biological intelligence
  • 84 interviewer: where does the government come in?
  • 85 stem cells restrictions are like a stone in the river which flows around it.
    I support stem cell research. I don't think we should have restrictions on it.
    But even with restrictions research is making substantial progres. It's certainly not slowing down biotech.
    There is role for government in containing the dangers of these techs.
  • 86 The quintessential threat we have now is in bio tech. We can reprogram bio away from disease.
    But it could enable bioterrorists to program a more deadly virus.
  • 87 How can we deal with that? "let's stop bio research"
    But this: 1. would deprive us of benefits 2. require totalitarian government 3. would not work; would drive tech underground where it would be less stable
  • 88 new danger: the software virus, arose 30 years ago. But we've contained it quite well.
  • 89 no one's taken the internet down, it's been quite stable
  • 89 this is where government comes in: we shouldn't put dangerous info on the web, but US gov did just that and we critised them
  • 90 phone caller asking about behaviour - eg. 2 of 3 people do not use turn signals
  • 91 phone caller asking how can technology can change our behaviour when most do not make use of it
  • 92 RK: good question, and also people do not take advantage of the health knowledge that is out there
  • 93 RK: the future tech will take that into account .. compensate for inability of humans to be perfect
  • 94 shows book Fantastic Voyage
  • 94 in mid 30s I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes ... 10% solution ...
  • 95 middle age, slowing down aging, possibility of extending lifespan
  • 99 Sherwin Nuland quote; interviewer asks are you afraid of death?
  • 100 we rationalise that death is a good thing is a very deeply rooted philosophy that we really had no choice to adopt because we had no alternative
  • 101 discusses the philosphy that death gives nobility to life
  • 102 Life extension is one interest. I use my tech predictions to time my inventions. ...
  • 103 How many supplements do you take daily? About 250. 50 or 60 different blood tests periodically.
  • 104 We were not evolved to live at our ages - our expectancy was 25 a thousand years ago.
    We need to reprogram our biochemistry.
  • 105 San Diego phone caller: brain injury that affects short term memory; would we lose something human by using tech to fix problems?
  • 107 RK: very good point in distinguishing between defect and a core abnormality ... that is creative in its own way
  • 108 we won't become more similar; we will become more different from each other - would be a good thing
  • 109 50% deflation rate - same computer capability for half the price the next year
  • 110 predicts table top molecular assemblers
  • 112 tools for creativity are now widespread and low cost
  • 113 phone caller asks about music-related devices, "Pitch Tracker"
  • 115 favourite composers? Classical: Beethoven; Contemporary: Beatles, Rolling Stones;
  • 116 on collaboration; a lot of our creativity we don't understand
  • 117 liability issues of a kid in virtual reality having problems in "real" reality
  • 118 phone caller asks about 3D virtual projection via satellite
  • 121 history of reading machine for blind
  • 126 In 2002 predicted blind reading machine would be camera sized in 4 years
  • 127 New York Times bestsellers list
  • 129 Interviewer: How do write books? RK: I write an essay, expand it, get feedback...
  • 130 R: I dictated most of The Age of the Spiritual Machine, but
  • 131 because I type quite fast speech recognition actually slows me down
  • 132 How long does it take to write books?
  • 133 RK talks about wife and children
  • 135 Manhatten Beach California phone caller: belief in God? string theory? the universe?
  • 136 We are becoming more God-like never reaching the infinite, evolution remains finite
  • 137 We will saturate our small part of the universe in a century, then expand
  • 138 How did our universe get so bio-friendly? How did that happen?
  • 139 String theory allows multiple universes. Maybe ours is a junior high school experiment.
  • 140 Emailer asks about anti-reactions to science.
  • 141 Not accurate to use past 50 years to predict next 50 years.
    Backlash is due to anxiety of pace of change.
    It is a fundamental problem.
  • 142 Interviewer: Opinion of president's approach to science? RK: I support stem cell research...
  • 143 RK: Do not think opposition has much effect on science progress.
  • 144 RK: not disatisfied with science funding; believe government should ...
  • 145 Idaho caller: John Hirse's book comments? Opinion on folks that wish return to eighth century
  • 146 RK: I do not think fundamentalists will succeed. Enhancing humanity not a new idea.
  • 147 What is "normal"? We need to be mindful of dangers.
  • 148 We can do a good job of extending human biology.
  • 148 Interviewer: What companies are on the forefront?
  • 149 RK: Small individual teams. Mentions small team working on antioxidant producing gene
  • 151 Google is a good example. Educated guess that Microsoft and Google will be successful in 15 years.
  • 153 Dayton, Idaho caller: followed nutrient regime. Followed Linus Pauling regime with poorer results.
  • 154 RK discusses Dr Grossman programme, repeating tests
  • 157 Interviewer: pharmacy companies create nanobots?
  • 158 devices' 3D volume shrinking by factor of one hundred per decade
  • 159 Pilot emailer asks about impact on transportation?
  • 160 transportation will become more automated
  • 161 Phone caller asks about impact on humanity. RK: It will change, conventions change, we adjust.
  • 162 No such thing as normal.
  • 163 Phone caller quotes Thomas Jefferson "I am no an advocate for frequent changes ... institutions must advance also..."
  • 164 RK: Good quote. There was progress then, but slow.
  • 165 RK: There is a very strong luddite movement.
  • 166 examples of opposition to certain types of advancement .. strong anti-technology movement
  • 167 Phone caller asks implication of nanos in brain and tendency of governments to become like a monarchy
  • 168 RK discusses concerns on spy programs on computers; issues with computers in our bodies; downsides
  • 169 software security, privacy is important; encryption tends to stay ahead of decryption
  • 170 Interviewer: Is it USA leading the advances or other countries? RK: Worldwide.
  • 171 Not a fixed size pie. Empowers China, India. It's a positive sum game.
  • 172 50% deflation rate does not cause reduction of IT market. It actually drives economic growth.
  • 173 Phone caller asks about future not being utopian. RK: Is a double-edged sword. +=cures; -=terrorism
  • 174 Regulatory system needs to be reformed, in order to protect ourselves from dangers.
  • 175 How do we test the bio inventions? Need to do more creative thinking.
  • 176 Phone caller asks about blind reader device availability and cost. RK: 3500 dollars
  • 177 Emailer asks should we fear machines as they gain intelligence? RK: We will not eliminate human conflict.
  • 178 We fear the aspects of humanity that allow us to be destructive. Fear human hatred which is amplified by tech.
  • 179 end of interview.

These precised notes are rushed and imperfect and only intended to give editors time markers to check what RK actually said. I did not catch any mention of global warming, but I could well have missed it as he does speak quite fast.-Wikianon (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This information will be used.

Ramona alter ego

Why is there no mention in the article about the importance of Ramona, Kurzweil's virtual avatar female rockstar alterego? At the moment, a Ramona is only mentioned briefly as a future character in a movie, but Ramona as an alter ego has been personally important to Kurzweil for a long time - he has performed publicly as her (personally controlling her movements and voice) on a number of occasions - including a debut at the famous TED (conference) in 2001.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=9

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_April_18/ai_73345385 -- TED conference mention (at bottom)

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2001/02/42031 - picture of Kurzweil performing as Ramona and a quote + audio interview talking aboutt how being a virtual female rock star is important to him.

76.171.0.166 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Predictions

Everyone,

This is my plan for improving this article:

-The "Future Predictions" section is going to be cut down in length by about 90%. -The remaining 10% of material in that section will summarize Kurzweil's most significant predictions. -The 90% that is removed will be sent to the appropriate Wikipedia entries for Kurzweil's various books. -The "Accuracy of Predictions" section will be cut down to only include evaluations directly taken from published sources, not from any Original Research.

This is all going to take a while. Please be patient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egermino (talk • contribs) 04:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish you luck. The whole accuracy section is a terrible violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. John Nevard (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I copied and pasted the "Future Predictions" material to the Wiki entries for Kurzweil's books. As soon as I am finished a short summary of said material, I will delete the monstrous "Future Predictions" stuff and replace it with the short summary. Egermino (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I also fully support you in this. I think having information about the accuracy of Ray's past predictions is paramount, but it really ought to be derived from published sources. Even if it was "Ray Kurzweil noted on his blog that such and such a prediction has come true," that would be something. The sentence is neutral (even though Ray's POV would certainly not be), and the reader can verify for himself, with the aid of a link (I'm sure Ray would cite his own sources). Torgo (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Please wait before cut down - Before deleting 90% of the article, could you please wait until I finish reading it. It is encyclopedic in content, and until I finish reading it all, I don't care if it is slanted one way or another. EricDiesel (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've split the section to a different article. Bob A (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

One or more anonymous users have kept restoring the duplicated section. If you intend to do this, at least give a rational. Bob A (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob, I and several of my colleagues go to this page as reference to research we are doing on this topic. There are at least a dozen of us and a few are not as good with the internet. We've been doing this for months now. Please don't delete the "prediction" section. There is value in it.
I have for that reason split it to a different article. Do you find it too much work to click on the link? Bob A (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is too much work, but English is not the first languange with some of the people I am working with. For me to explain to them how to get to the article will be too much. We will only be working on this for a few more months.
Just give them the link (here). I don't consider this a valid reason. This article has become too long and needs to be shortened to reduce bandwidth usage and load times. I shall revert the restoration. Bob A (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ray Kurzweil/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
Things to consider
  • References should be placed after the punctuation without any space in-between per WP:FOOT.
  • Consider creating a References / Notes section and using the cite.php format as suggested per WP:FAC - WP:FOOT
  • Add more sources
  •  Done Looks like the article is already sufficiently sourced. Being a comment from 2006 and all, I'll let this one go. What I did do is cut out the whole religion section because of total lack of sources --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Several one / two sentence structures - look at turning these into paragraphs.
This looks like a good article. I did not look at prose, image fairuse, NPOV, etc but the information looked pretty good. Consider submitting for WP:GA when you get things cleaned up. Morphh 21:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 21:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ray_Kurzweil/Archive_1&oldid=1030652751"