“But only 25% of the correspondents thought it was worth it.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Only 25% of surveyed executives thought Microsoft Copilot was worth it.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, AI influencer hype gone wild, paragraph 7.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-ai-influencer-hype-gone-wild-bf52a3-a4
We recorded 2 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2024-10-31. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
Conditions
- CNBC Technology Executive Council survey respondents (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- only 25% of the correspondents thought it was worth it
- another quarter said the $30/month cost was not worth it
- remaining half said it was too soon to tell
Our interpretation
- 'Worth it' means worth the $30 per user per month cost, as the CNBC question asked.
Counts as supported if: The CNBC October 2024 survey reports about 25% yes, 25% no, and 50% too soon to know on whether Copilot was worth the cost.
Counts as contradicted if: The survey reports a materially different share saying it was worth it.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Supported
The dated evidence matches what the claim committed to, under the criteria frozen before grading.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
A CNBC report, syndicated by NBC San Diego and available by 2024-10-29, describes the latest bi-annual survey of the CNBC Technology Executive Council (e1). The respondents were asked whether Copilot had been worth the cost, given as $30 monthly per user (e1). One quarter said yes, one quarter said no, and 50% said it was still too soon to know (e1). Marcus wrote that 25% thought it was worth it, another quarter said it was not, and half said it was too soon to tell. The figures CNBC reported match his.
Limitations
- The CNBC report does not give the sample size.
- The quoted report text does not give the dates the survey was conducted.
- The respondents were tech executives on CNBC's Technology Executive Council. The evidence does not show whether they represent Copilot customers in general.
- The question asked whether Copilot was worth its cost. It did not ask about general satisfaction or usefulness.
Evidence (1 item)
Supports the claim: CNBC (syndicated by NBC San Diego),
When asked whether it's been worth the cost ($30 monthly per user in the case of Copilot), tech leaders say they aren't sure. An equal one-quarter of respondents answered either yes or no to that question, while 50% of respondents said it is still too soon to know.
Why it matters here: Matches his 25% yes, 25% no, 50% too-soon breakdown exactly.
- Where
- paragraph 9
- Publisher
- CNBC (syndicated by NBC San Diego)
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, AI influencer hype gone wild
But only 25% of the correspondents thought it was worth it.
- Where
- paragraph 7
- Published
- 2024-10-31
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-ai-influencer-hype-gone-wild-bf52a3-a4: Current. Outcome: Supported. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-ai-influencer-hype-gone-wild-bf52a3-a4.
HeldBy this site
The final-text check failed: rationale_supported_by_evidence; overclaims: CNBC reported on its Technology Executive Council survey (e1, dated 2024-10-21)..
About assessment marcus-ai-influencer-hype-gone-wild-bf52a3-a3, which was not published.