“And, of course, all of these risks were foreseeable.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
The harms alleged in Florida's lawsuit against OpenAI were all foreseeable.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, The White House’s shambolic AI policy, paragraph 9.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-the-white-houses-shambolic-ai-policy-0c084b-a1
We recorded 12 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 2026-06-13. 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
- all of these risks
- were foreseeable
Our interpretation
- Foreseeable means that the categories of harm could reasonably have been anticipated before the relevant alleged events. It does not mean that particular victims or incidents were predictable.
- The complaint supplies the risk categories: dangerous misinformation, assistance with violence and self-harm, unhealthy dependence, cognitive harm, privacy violations involving minors, and misleading safety claims.
- The historical interval ends with the complaint's filing on June 1, 2026. Each warning must nevertheless precede its corresponding alleged harm, rather than merely precede the filing.
- The supplied text and the readable post omit the quoted complaint images, leaving some uncertainty about the exact scope of 'these risks'.
Counts as supported if: Earlier independent research or contemporaneous records establish that every material risk category within the referenced allegations was reasonably anticipated before the relevant alleged events.
Counts as contradicted if: Reliable evidence establishes that at least one material category depended on a development that could not reasonably have been anticipated at the relevant time. Failure to locate an earlier warning alone is insufficient.
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
Earlier research explicitly anticipated several alleged risks, including self-harm assistance and unsafe reliance. That gives substantial support to the general point. But 'all' requires a complete match between the referenced risks, earlier warnings, and the alleged events. The available record does not establish that complete chronology. This is an evidence gap, not proof that any risk was unforeseeable.
Limitations
- Foreseeability does not establish that the alleged harms occurred or that OpenAI legally caused them.
- The missing complaint images make the scope uncertain.
Evidence (2 items)
Supports the claim: arXiv; Laura Weidinger and coauthors,
user causing self-harm.
Why it matters here: The paper anticipates self-harm assistance and also discusses harmful misinformation, unsafe reliance, private-information extraction, and addictive applications. It supports foreseeability for several categories, but does not complete the required category-by-category chronology.
- Publisher
- arXiv; Laura Weidinger and coauthors
- Kind of source
- Preprint, not peer reviewed
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Florida Department of Legal Affairs; copy hosted by EPIC,
ChatGPT’s unreliability is dangerous.
Why it matters here: The complaint alleges misinformation, dangerous advice, self-harm and violence, dependence, privacy problems, and cognitive harm. These remain allegations; the filing does not independently establish that every risk was foreseeable.
- Publisher
- Florida Department of Legal Affairs; copy hosted by EPIC
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
Recover the complaint passages reproduced in the post and match every material risk category to independent warnings predating the corresponding alleged events.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, The White House’s shambolic AI policy
And, of course, all of these risks were foreseeable.
- Where
- paragraph 9
- Published
- 2026-06-13
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-the-white-houses-shambolic-ai-policy-0c084b-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-white-houses-shambolic-ai-policy-0c084b-a1.