Pundit ClaimsAI claims by Gary Marcus and Ed Zitron, with the evidence

Gary Marcus Marcus on AI Published

“Not consistently candid”

We recorded 7 claims from this post. 7 can’t be checked. 1 more is held. Read the post at its source.

Claims from this post (7)

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.

  1. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “The more that comes out, the less likely any of these three theories seems to be correct.”

    What we tested: The popular theories of the OpenAI board's firing of Altman (D'Angelo conflict of interest, an incompetent board, Toner as a communist) look less and less likely to be correct as more information comes out.

  2. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “Altman gave up his board seat. If there was really nothing that even looked like legitimate beef against him, I doubt he would have conceded this.”

    What we tested: Marcus doubts that Altman would have given up his OpenAI board seat if there had really been nothing against him that even looked like a legitimate grievance.

  3. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “It may well be worth tens of millions of dollars; even for Altman, that’s not trivial.”

    What we tested: Altman's indirect stake in OpenAI through Y Combinator may be worth tens of millions of dollars.

  4. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “By any reasonable measure they have strayed, very far, from that mission. That’s primarily on Sam.”

    What we tested: By any reasonable measure, OpenAI has strayed very far from its founding mission of safe, broadly beneficial, openly shared AI, and that is primarily Altman's responsibility.

  5. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “If the Board was making a step towards bringing them back to their original mission, of AI for human interest rather than for profit, we should be praising them, not burying them.”

    What we tested: If the OpenAI board was trying to return OpenAI to its original mission of AI for human interest rather than profit, it should be praised, not condemned.

  6. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “OpenAI characterizes Altman’s indirect stake as a “small investment”, but OpenAI and Altman should nonetheless disclose the value of that stake, My guess is that it is at least worth many tens of millions, at the new $86B valuation, possibly more, more than many people will earn in a lifetime.”

    What we tested: OpenAI and Altman should disclose the value of Altman's indirect stake, which Marcus guesses is worth at least many tens of millions of dollars at the $86B valuation.

  7. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “If he was already working on the chip deal in May at the Senate, that should have been disclosed, too.”

    What we tested: If Altman was already working on the Rain chip deal when he testified to the Senate in May 2023, he should have disclosed it.

Held from this post (1)

These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.