“The request is perfectly clear, not a nonsensical question in any way. The prompt is perfectly sensible; the system just isn’t up to the job.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
The request in his example is perfectly clear and sensible, not nonsensical in any way, and the system just isn't up to the job.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Caricaturing Noam Chomsky, paragraph 46.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-caricaturing-noam-chomsky-83d509-a1
We recorded 5 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-29. The source may have been edited after 2023-03-12. 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
- the specific request in his example (scope, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- The request is perfectly clear
- not a nonsensical question in any way
- The prompt is perfectly sensible
- the system just isn’t up to the job
Our interpretation
- The ordinary reading is that the particular prompt has coherent, sufficiently clear requirements and the displayed response fails them.
- This is an assessment of the displayed attempt, not a claim that every attempt or future model must fail.
- The target is the exchange referenced before publication. Its exact date is unspecified, so no lower date bound is supplied.
Counts as supported if: The complete prompt specifies a coherent task with no material ambiguity affecting the alleged error, and the authenticated response violates at least one clear requirement.
Counts as contradicted if: The complete response meets the prompt's requirements, or the prompt contains a material ambiguity or inconsistency that defeats the assertion that it is perfectly clear and sensible.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Unresolved
The record was checked, and the evidence available by the cutoff does not settle it.
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
This claim is checkable in principle, but the necessary exchange is missing from the retrieved record. The surrounding description cannot establish either that the instructions were unambiguous or that ChatGPT violated them. Other examples of ChatGPT making mistakes would not settle this claim.
Limitations
- The retrieval gap is not evidence that the prompt was unclear or that the response was correct.
- A single verified failure would establish failure on that attempt, not universal inability.
Evidence (0 items)
No evidence item settled this claim by the cutoff.
What would settle it
An independently authenticated copy of the complete original prompt and response, including any preceding conversation, followed by a requirement-by-requirement check.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Caricaturing Noam Chomsky
The request is perfectly clear, not a nonsensical question in any way. The prompt is perfectly sensible; the system just isn’t up to the job.
- Where
- paragraph 46
- Published
- 2023-03-12
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-caricaturing-noam-chomsky-83d509-a1: Current. Outcome: Unresolved. 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-caricaturing-noam-chomsky-83d509-a1.