Back when artificial intelligence was still poorly understood outside research labs, Ray Kurzweil was already frustrated with how narrowly it was being discussed. In a 1991 interview with Computerworld, he pushed back forcefully against claims that AI had failed to live up to its promise.
Kurzweil argued that public expectations were skewed not by failure, but by familiarity.
“People usually just mean expert systems when they refer to AI, but that’s just one small part of it. By the end of this decade, most software will be intelligent, but it won’t necessarily be called AI.”
AI then and now
More than three decades later, image recognition, speech-to-text, recommendation systems, and automated decision-making are everywhere, and rarely even thought of as AI anymore. The label has simply moved on to the likes of ChatGPT and Google Gemini.
At the time of the Computerworld interview, Kurzweil was already deeply embedded in the commercial side of artificial intelligence, having founded multiple companies focused on pattern recognition, music synthesis, and speech recognition. When asked whether he was surprised by how computing had evolved since his teenage years, he dismissed the suggestion.
“I’m not really surprised. I’ve always felt that digital information could encompass many types of phenomena — from sound, speech and music to pictures and three-dimensional objects. Almost everything can be digitized. Even our genetic code can be digitized.”
For Kurzweil, the question was never if machines could do these things, but when they would become cheap and fast enough to matter.
“It was also clear to me that a gradual price/performance revolution of digital electronics would ultimately allow all of these types of information to become practical and cost-effective.”
That framing — economics over breakthroughs — underpins much of today’s AI boom. The models themselves are impressive, but their sudden usefulness is largely the result of scale, compute, and cost curves finally aligning.
When asked directly how he defined artificial intelligence, Kurzweil avoided the sci-fi tropes of the time, explaining: “AI is the art of creating machines that perform functions we associate with human intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to use limited resources in an effective way using abstract reasoning, the ability to recognize patterns and the ability to solve problems in a limited time period.”
Kurzweil then added a detail that feels even more relevant today than it did back then.
“But probably 80% to 90% of our brains are devoted to pattern recognition and skill acquisition.”
Modern machine learning systems are built almost entirely on that assumption. They do not reason in the way humans like to imagine, but they excel at recognizing patterns across vast amounts of data — exactly the cognitive function Kurzweil identified as dominant.
AI and consciousness
Later in the interview, he was asked where AI stood in its evolution. His answer was cautious, and revealing.
“We are creating systems that can emulate human intelligence within a narrow domain. They diagnose a limited domain of illnesses, play a game like chess, make a type of financial decision, guide a missile toward a building.”
The limitation, he explained, was context.
“These systems become idiots again when they go outside their area of expertise. As AI matures, we’re trying to broaden the machine’s areas of expertise by combining different AI systems such as speech recognition, natural language understanding and the ability to make decisions within a certain expert domain.”
Kurzweil was asked by Computerworld what he envisioned when looking into the future, and replied: “The question is: What is really going to happen when computers can compete with human intelligence or exceed it? Once a computer can emulate essential human functionality, it can then combine that with the enormous superiority it already displays in its ability to remember billions or trillions of facts with extreme precision, to access that information at extremely high speed and to perform functions over and over again very quickly.”
He then pointed out, “If it can read a book, there’s nothing to stop it from reading every book that’s ever been published and all magazines and technical journals and from mastering all human knowledge. Once it reaches equality with human intelligence in some areas, it is necessarily going to be greatly superior to human intelligence in other areas.”
Kurzweil concluded that thought with a comment which is especially pertinent today: “The ramifications of that are difficult to understand. Much of our pride is associated with our confidence in being superior in the intellectual realm.”
One of the most philosophically loaded questions in the interview came when Kurzweil was asked whether a machine could ever be conscious. His response sidestepped easy answers.
“The key is the issue of consciousness and what it means to be a living, conscious entity and whether a machine that appears to emulate human-like functionality is conscious,” he said.
“Perhaps the best way to understand the paradoxes this issue confronts us with is to examine the following scenario: Eventually, we’ll be able to scan a human being, and a computer will take note of the exact structure of all of our neurons and other cells. You could then imagine creating a new computer that would be wired up in exactly the same way that the person just scanned.”
Kurzweil was not trying to solve consciousness as an engineering problem. He was reframing it as a question of identity. If a system looks, speaks, and remembers exactly like a person, then the question of consciousness stops being technical and becomes philosophical.
“If you ran into this computer, it would seem very much like the original person to you. The question then is, is it the same person? Does this computer have consciousness? One might say yes, because you’d get all the sense of consciousness if you interviewed it. The bottom line is: There is no scientific experiment you can conduct to determine whether any other entity — an animal, machine or person — is conscious.”
Today, as AI systems produce language about emotions, identity, and self-awareness, Kurzweil’s framing feels less hypothetical and more uncomfortable. He was not claiming machines would be conscious, of course, only that humans lack a reliable way to deny it once that behavior becomes convincing.
That uncertainty surfaced in real life in 2022, when Google engineer Blake Lemoine became convinced that the company’s LaMDA system was sentient, shared his claims with The Washington Post, and was promptly suspended.
Watch On
AI and jobs
The 1991 interview also tackled public anxiety about automation and work, which is a major topic today.
Kurzweil said: “It will have a very profound impact on society and the role that human beings play. Despite the fact that computers, automation and machines have increasingly been able to perform functions that human beings can, human employment has increased quite dramatically. We went from 12 million jobs employing 30% of the population 100 years ago to over 120 million jobs employing 50% of the population. Not only that, the sophistication of the jobs has increased, and they pay six times as much in constant dollars. However, the question remains: What will people do in the year 2050, given the enormous intellectual power computers are likely to have?”
Kurzweil didn’t attempt to answer his own question, but instead left it deliberately open.
Today, in his late seventies, Kurzweil works at Google and is often described as the “spiritual father of AI.” Many of the ideas shaping modern machine learning echo arguments he was already making back in 1991.
Thirty-five years later, we are much closer to the future he described — but no closer to answering the question he left hanging.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!
And of course you can also follow TechRadar on TikTok for news, reviews, unboxings in video form, and get regular updates from us on WhatsApp too.
