The computational prediction of gene function is a key step in making full use of newly sequenced genomes. Function is generally predicted by transferring annotations from homologous genes or proteins for which experimental evidence exists. The 'ortholog conjecture' proposes that orthologous genes should be preferred when making such predictions, as they evolve functions more slowly than paralogous genes. Previous research has provided little support for the ortholog conjecture, though the incomplete nature of the data cast doubt on the conclusions. We use experimental annotations from over 40 000 proteins, drawn from over 80 000 publications, to revisit the ortholog conjecture in two pairs of species: (i) Homo sapiens and Mus musculus and (ii) Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe. By making a distinction between questions about the evolution of function versus questions about the prediction of function, we find strong evidence against the ortholog conjecture in the context of function prediction, though questions about the evolution of function remain difficult to address. In both pairs of species, we quantify the amount of information that would be ignored if paralogs are discarded, as well as the resulting loss in prediction accuracy. Taken as a whole, our results support the view that the types of homologs used for function transfer are largely irrelevant to the task of function prediction. Maximizing the amount of data used for this task, regardless of whether it comes from orthologs or paralogs, is most likely to lead to higher prediction accuracy. https://github.com/predragradivojac/oc. Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.