“Some people shift their goalposts; others try to duck specifying goalposts altogether.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
In AGI discussions, some people shift their goalposts while others, including Altman, avoid specifying any.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, The Five Stages of AGI Grief, paragraph 14.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-the-five-stages-of-agi-grief-578035-a1
We recorded 7 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 2025-01-07. 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)
From the speaker
- Some people shift their goalposts
- others try to duck specifying goalposts altogether
- Altman’s most recent blog post
Our interpretation
- Read in context, the claim concerns the named AGI discussions, rather than every statement Altman or every AI researcher has made.
- Shifting goalposts requires evidence that the same actor materially changed an earlier criterion. Disagreement between different authors is insufficient.
- The observable part of ducking goalposts is discussing AGI without stating criteria in the referenced essay. Omission alone does not establish deliberate evasion.
- The target period covers the February 2023 definition explicitly discussed in the post through its January 2025 publication.
Counts as supported if: The referenced essay discusses AGI without specifying criteria, and dated statements establish a material change in a named actor's previously stated criteria.
Counts as contradicted if: The referenced essay supplies an applicable definition, and the alleged changes are shown to preserve the same criteria or concern distinct purposes rather than a changed standard.
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
Altman's referenced essay does discuss AGI without restating criteria, so the narrow omission allegation holds. The larger claim remains unsettled: earlier explicit definitions exist, and a competing definition is not sufficient evidence that its author moved an earlier goalpost. The record also does not establish an intention to evade criteria. These gaps justify unresolved rather than treating partial support as support for the whole sentence.
Limitations
- Omission, inconsistency, and deliberate evasion are different propositions.
- The claim's unspecified actors prevent an exhaustive test.
Evidence (3 items)
Supports the claim: Sam Altman,
as we have traditionally understood it.
Why it matters here: The complete essay discusses building AGI and its implications without restating a definition or test. This supports the narrow omission claim, while its reference to a traditional understanding leaves open an existing external definition.
- Publisher
- Sam Altman
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: OpenAI,
AI systems that are generally smarter than humans
Why it matters here: OpenAI had publicly stated an AGI definition before Reflections. That limits any inference from the later essay's omission to an absence of criteria altogether, but does not establish whether its criteria changed.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Noema,
a multidimensional scorecard
Why it matters here: Agüera y Arcas and Norvig explicitly discuss criteria across topics, tasks, modalities, languages, and instructability. Their different conception of AGI does not by itself demonstrate a change from their own earlier criteria.
- Publisher
- Noema
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
Dated before-and-after criteria from the same named actors, with evidence that the later criterion replaced the earlier one for the same purpose. Intent would require additional direct evidence.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, The Five Stages of AGI Grief
Some people shift their goalposts; others try to duck specifying goalposts altogether.
- Where
- paragraph 14
- Published
- 2025-01-07
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-the-five-stages-of-agi-grief-578035-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-the-five-stages-of-agi-grief-578035-a1.