“The shift in norms has extended to our government, too; gone are the days when Washington was afraid of the risks of AI enough to seriously consider doing anything about them.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Washington no longer seriously considers acting on AI risks.
Assessment: Contradicted Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Two Years Ago Today in AI History: The Tale of An About-face in AI Regulation, paragraph 26.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-two-years-ago-today-in-ai-history-3776fa-a1
We recorded 13 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 2025-05-16. 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
- our government
- gone are the days
- Washington
- seriously consider doing anything
- risks of AI
Our interpretation
- Read Washington as the federal executive and Congress, consistent with the surrounding discussion of both.
- Serious consideration includes substantive legislative advancement or adopted executive safeguards addressing identifiable AI harms.
- Assess observable policy actions, not officials' private feelings of fear.
- For the ongoing state, use the current administration from January 20 through the May 16, 2025 post.
- A shift toward innovation does not alone establish abandonment of all risk-related action.
Counts as supported if: The current federal record shows abandonment of substantive consideration or implementation of measures addressing AI risks.
Counts as contradicted if: Congress or the executive seriously advances or adopts substantive measures addressing AI risks during the target period.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Contradicted
The dated evidence goes against 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
Before the post, Congress had passed the TAKE IT DOWN Act through both chambers, addressing AI-generated intimate images. The executive branch had also required risk management for high-impact federal AI and cessation where risks could not be mitigated. These are concrete counterexamples to the claim that Washington no longer seriously considered doing anything about AI risks. The administration's shift toward innovation is real in the cited order, but the broader claim overstates it.
Limitations
- Targeted measures do not establish comprehensive regulation of frontier AI developers.
- The assessment does not judge the measures' adequacy or eventual effectiveness.
- The TAKE IT DOWN Act had passed Congress but was not yet signed when Marcus posted.
Evidence (3 items)
Goes against the claim: U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
the TAKE IT DOWN Act now heads to the President to be signed into law.
Why it matters here: Congress had passed legislation addressing nonconsensual intimate images, including AI-generated images, with criminal provisions and removal duties. Passage through both chambers exceeds mere discussion of AI risks.
- Where
- Opening paragraph
- Publisher
- U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
Goes against the claim: White House Office of Management and Budget,
If proper risk mitigation is not possible, agencies must cease the use of the AI.
Why it matters here: The executive branch directed agencies to manage risks from high-impact AI and cease use when mitigation is impossible. This is concrete risk-related action despite the memorandum's emphasis on adoption.
- Publisher
- White House Office of Management and Budget
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: The White House,
we must develop AI systems that are free from ideological bias or engineered social agendas.
Why it matters here: The order emphasizes AI leadership and directs review and possible removal of actions under the revoked Biden AI order. It supports the narrower account of changed priorities, but does not establish that all serious risk-related action stopped.
- Where
- Section 1, Purpose
- Publisher
- The White House
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Two Years Ago Today in AI History: The Tale of An About-face in AI Regulation
The shift in norms has extended to our government, too; gone are the days when Washington was afraid of the risks of AI enough to seriously consider doing anything about them.
- Where
- paragraph 26
- Published
- 2025-05-16
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-two-years-ago-today-in-ai-history-3776fa-a1: Current. Outcome: Contradicted. 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-two-years-ago-today-in-ai-history-3776fa-a1.