BREAKING: Expensive new evidence that scaling is not all you need
We recorded 3 claims from this post. 1 was checked against evidence. 2 can’t be checked. 6 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (3)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“That hypothesis continues to go badly, as expensive experiments from two of the world’s wealthiest men have just shown.”
Our reading: The hypothesis that spending more on compute and data is the road to AGI continues to go badly, as recent expensive experiments by two of the world's wealthiest men (at Meta and xAI) have just shown.
No horizon
Qualifier: as shown by recent expensive experiments at Meta and xAI
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“So much for pure scaling”
Our reading: Marcus dismisses pure scaling in light of the Meta and xAI results ('so much for pure scaling').
No horizon
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“In my 2020 article, The Next Decade in AI, I foresaw all this, and urged the field to start focusing on world (cognitive) models and neurosymbolic AI.”
Our reading: In his 2020 article 'The Next Decade in AI', Marcus foresaw these developments and urged the field to start focusing on world (cognitive) models and neurosymbolic AI.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Support depends on interpreting 'foresaw all this' as a general warning, rather than a specific prediction of the 2026 Meta and xAI developments.
Held from this post (6)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The record does not meet the current rules. Our reading, not assessed: Musk's concession fits well with Marcus's Feb 3 theory that SpaceX's $250 billion acquisition of xAI was a thinly disguised bailout, since one does not pay $250 billion for a company built wrong from the foundations.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: It has become clear that Meta's latest model is good but not great, and not what Zuckerberg was hoping for.
- The two reviews read the claim differently