People Kurzweil spoke to who a year earlier dismissed AI as not very good have completely changed their views in the last year.
Own records only Only the person's or their organisation's own records speak to it, so it is not scored.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
Reasoning
Concerns private conversations with unnamed people whose views changed; no public record.
Cite this claim
Ray Kurzweil, “People Kurzweil spoke to who a year earlier dismissed AI as not very good have completely changed their views in the last year.” (said 20 January 2026). Verdict: own records only. Reliability API, claim c_7e72c8be46a6, method 0.1.0+28da144b, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_7e72c8be46a6
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Ray Kurzweil
-
Mostly false
“That was not true a year ago. But that’s true today.”
-
Mixed
“AI hallucinations are still there, but are becoming much less frequent.”
AI hallucinations persist but are becoming much less frequent.
-
Mostly true
“And it’s going very, very quickly — at an exponential rate”
AI progress is advancing very quickly, at an exponential rate.
-
Mostly true
“It was not quite as good, but you could recognize it as Mozart or as Chopin.”
-
Mostly true
“Yes, it was very much for AI.”
The prizes received by Geoffrey Hinton and by Demis Hassabis and John Jumper were very much for AI.
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.