Talk:Ray Kurzweil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeRay Kurzweil was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
June 26, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed


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 (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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Any non-spammy sources about his supplement gig?[edit]

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?'[edit]

User Retimuko 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)