THE KURZWEIL SCORECARD · October 15, 2026

Where was Ray Kurzweil right?

Kurzweil put deadlines on wireless networks, wearable computers and self-driving cars. We checked 84 of his forecasts against what happened.

Networks and medical tools fare better in this collection than robotics and transport. Of 16 computing forecasts, 10 came true, 5 by the deadline.

See the breakdown Browse all 84 predictions

How the predictions turned out

68 predictions with deadlines passed · Our judgment

How we judge them ↗

Our judgments on a selected collection, not a lifetime accuracy score. 16 other records are future or undated. Scope & sources

THE DATA

How the fields compare

In our default reading, 3 of 4 network forecasts and 4 of 5 medical forecasts were fully realized by the review date. Robotics and transport: 1 of 5. These are small groups drawn from an incomplete collection.

68 predictions with deadlines passed

On timeLatePartialMissed

Open a field to see its predictions. Hover a square for the claim; select it for the evidence.

Fully realized = on time + late. Partial gets no fractional credit. Both percentages use the assessed predictions in that field. Sample sizes and deadlines differ between fields.

How the 13 categories are defined

Computing hardware

Claims about computing capacity, size and cost.

Networks & communications

Transport and availability of information, not language understanding.

AI & software

Software abilities. Tag commercial adoption separately.

Interfaces & virtual worlds

Distinguish headsets, retinal displays, contact lenses and direct neural interfaces.

Biology & medicine

Separate computational research milestones from human clinical outcomes.

Longevity

Keep population, age group, access and life-expectancy definition explicit.

Neuroscience & human augmentation

Brain hardware, brain understanding and cognition augmentation.

Robotics & transportation

Distinguish prototype, commercial service and widespread use.

Manufacturing & materials

Medical nanobots: primary category Biology & medicine; nanotech as a tag.

Energy & environment

Preserve energy versus electricity, capacity versus generation.

Economy & society

Track geography and population; separate causal claims from observed events.

Media, education & culture

Do not confuse availability with dominant use.

Security & warfare

Distinguish device existence from prevalence or displacement of personnel.

How the target years compare

The two largest groups target 2009 and 2019: 61 of these 68 forecasts. Each column shows the outcomes for one target year, assessed through October 15, 2026.

On timeLatePartialMissed

Select a year to see its predictions. 68 predictions with deadlines passed.

Predictions

Target year · one column per group

Older targets have had longer to catch up, and each group contains different claims. Only due forecasts are shown; year columns are equally spaced.

Compare by prediction type or decade

Compare the collection

84 predictions · 68 with deadlines passed · Our judgment

Capability asks whether a technology exists; adoption asks how widely people use it.

Outcomes by Prediction type, Our judgment. Future and undated predictions are excluded from outcome counts.
Prediction typeDue On time Late Partial Missed
Adoption3476129
Capability9 future2514443
Performance / cost1 future30102
Research milestone22000
Social / institutional4 future · 2 undated20002
Trend22000

14 future and 2 undated predictions are outside the outcome counts. Select a count to explore its predictions in the ledger.

Judgments & sourcesBack to the data ↑

What counts as a hit?

We judge each claim against its deadline and intended scale. A working product can satisfy a capability forecast; a prediction of widespread use also needs evidence of adoption.

Consumer preference and regulation can limit use even when a technology works. We judge those cases individually and show alternative readings where the result is ambiguous.

CorrectTarget: 2009

Wireless peripherals

Wireless keyboards and mice were in ordinary use by 2009. He was right about the technology, but less accurate about consumer preference: wired devices remained in use.

Read the evidence
How much do the judgments change the score?

How the reading changes the result

Same 67 predictions in every reading. One brain-modeling forecast is left out because its alternative deadline has not passed.

Reading comparison on the same eligible forecast versions; selected subset only.
ReadingPredictionsOn timeFully realized
Reference (stated reasonable reading)6737.3%25 / 6753.7%36 / 67
Strict / alternative reading6725.4%17 / 6737.3%25 / 67
Broader / directional reading6755.2%37 / 6792.5%62 / 67

The main comparison has 68 due predictions. This comparison uses the 67 eligible in all three readings. Broader success may mean meeting different conditions; open a record to see what changed.

Check our work

Each record includes the forecast, our judgment, source links and earlier assessments. Open one to check the reasoning or compare alternative readings.

Explore the predictions

What this collection can tell us

It compares 84 distinct forecast versions. Repeated claims count once; materially different deadlines or thresholds stay separate. 68 are due, 14 are future, and 2 lack a usable deadline.

The selection is incomplete and uneven across fields. Most book claims were checked through reprints or retrospectives; original editions still need checking. The research and judgments are AI-assisted and have not had independent human review.

Outcomes are assessed through October 15, 2026. The sources and downloads include all 88 original intake records and earlier assessments.