Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
68 61 75 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
42 25 60 -
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
Insufficient record: 0 promises resolved, 5 needed for a score.
All types combined: 65 (likely 58 to 71, high confidence), from 78 claims: 69 factual claims, 9 predictions. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Ray Kurzweil's claims
24 claims
“Neuralink, for example, is implanted in two paralyzed patients.”
Ray Kurzweil, podcast guest October 2024 Ray Kurzweil: 2022-2025 Updates (transcripts) (LifeArchitect.ai)
Neuralink has been implanted in two paralyzed patients who can control a computer with their brain.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
The second judge said mixed; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
The claim is that, as of October 2024, Neuralink's device had been implanted in exactly two paralyzed patients who can control a computer with their brain. True if records (Neuralink announcements, credible news reports) show two paralyzed human patients had received the Neuralink implant and demonstrated computer control by that date. Mostly true if two were implanted and controlling computers but one qualifier is slightly off (e.g., exact count of patients demonstrating control vs implanted differs by detail). Mixed if only one of the two-ness or the computer-control element clearly holds. Mostly false if only one paralyzed patient had been implanted by then (partial). False if no Neuralink human implants had occurred by October 2024.
Evidence
- Neuralink implants second paralysed patient with brain-chip Clinical Trials Arena (GlobalData) · 6 August 2024
“Neuralink has successfully implanted a second patient with its brain-chip device, according to the company’s owner Elon Musk.”
- Neuralink implants second paralysed patient with brain-chip Clinical Trials Arena (GlobalData) · 6 August 2024
“The start-up founder unveiled few other details, stating only the second participant had a spinal cord injury similar to the first patient implanted with the device earlier this year.”
- Neuralink implants second paralysed patient with brain-chip Clinical Trials Arena (GlobalData) · 6 August 2024
“Neuralink reported positive findings from the first implant – even releasing videos of the patient playing chess on a computer using his thoughts.”
- Neuralink Mezha.ua (Ukrainska Pravda group)
“Neuralink implanted chip in second patient, everything went extremely well - Elon Musk”
Reasoning
An independent report dated August 2024 says Neuralink implanted its device in a second patient. It says this patient had a spinal cord injury similar to the first patient's (E1, E2). So two paralyzed patients had the implant before October 2024. The evidence shows computer control only for the first patient, who was shown playing chess on a computer by thought (E3). Nothing in the evidence shows the second patient controlling a computer, which matches the criteria's "mostly true" case where the count of patients shown controlling a computer differs from the count implanted.
Cite this claim
Ray Kurzweil, “Neuralink has been implanted in two paralyzed patients who can control a computer with their brain.” (said October 2024). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_9519f5c61532, method 0.1.0+28da144b. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_9519f5c61532
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Ray Kurzweil? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.