“And as I've suggested above, while these models might "improve," the billions of dollars burned by OpenAI, Anthropic and Stability AI's models have found few ways to mitigate the restrictions of an artificial intelligence that doesn't have an intellect.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Billions spent by OpenAI, Anthropic and Stability AI have found few ways to mitigate the limitations of AI without intellect.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Ed Zitron wrote it
Where's Your Ed At, Subprime Intelligence, paragraph 12.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment wyea-sam-altman-fried-d3c850-a1
We recorded 26 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 2024-02-19. 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
- billions of dollars burned
- OpenAI, Anthropic and Stability AI's models
- have found few ways to mitigate
- restrictions of an artificial intelligence that doesn't have an intellect
Our interpretation
- The contextual limitations are hallucinations, inaccurate details and inconsistent outputs.
- Few ways is read as limited practical mitigation, allowing some improvement.
- Have found describes cumulative results through publication, with no stated beginning.
- The spending reference is retained as part of the claim. Dollars is read as US dollars, but burned does not distinguish expenses, losses or net cash use.
- No accounting source or basis is identified in the supplied passage. Intellect has no operational definition.
Counts as supported if: Verified cumulative spending on a matching basis, together with comparable evaluations across the three firms, shows little practical mitigation of the specified limitations by publication.
Counts as contradicted if: Comparable evaluations establish substantial practical mitigation across the claimed scope, with the monetary premise assessed on a matching, identifiable basis.
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
The evidence shows both persistent limitations and reported mitigation. Anthropic's comparison is material counterevidence to negligible progress, while OpenAI acknowledges remaining hallucinations. Neither settles how much mitigation counts as few ways across all three firms. The unspecified financial basis also prevents a supported or contradicted verdict on the combined claim.
Limitations
- The technical evidence consists of company disclosures.
- The financial premise remains unverified.
- The claim does not define intellect or distinguish the number of mitigation methods from their effectiveness.
Evidence (2 items)
Context only: Anthropic,
Claude 2.1 has also made significant gains in honesty, with a 2x decrease in false statements compared to our previous Claude 2.0 model.
Why it matters here: This is material counterevidence to an interpretation implying negligible mitigation: Anthropic reports a substantial reduction on its tests. It measures technical performance, not the combined spending-and-results proposition.
- Publisher
- Anthropic
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: OpenAI,
GPT‑4 still has many known limitations that we are working to address, such as social biases, hallucinations, and adversarial prompts.
Why it matters here: Persistent hallucinations support the narrower concern that important limitations remained. Their continued existence does not establish that little mitigation occurred or measure money burned.
- Where
- Limitations
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
An identifiable spending metric and period, matched financial evidence, and comparable pre-publication evaluations of hallucination and consistency improvements across the three firms.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Where's Your Ed At, Subprime Intelligence
And as I've suggested above, while these models might "improve," the billions of dollars burned by OpenAI, Anthropic and Stability AI's models have found few ways to mitigate the restrictions of an artificial intelligence that doesn't have an intellect.
- Where
- paragraph 12
- Published
- 2024-02-19
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment wyea-sam-altman-fried-d3c850-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.