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

Sora still appears to have trouble with physics

We recorded 6 claims from this post. 5 were checked against evidence. 1 can’t be checked. 2 more are held. Read the post at its source.

Claims from this post (6)

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: UnresolvedSaid

  2. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Sora is never really getting it, even with mountains and mountains of data.”

    What we tested: Sora will never really grasp object permanence, even with vast amounts of data.

  3. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “That gross violation of spatiotemporal continuity/failure of object permanence is not a one-off, either; it’s something general.”

    What we tested: Sora's failures of object permanence and spatiotemporal continuity are general rather than isolated.

    What happened: The developer identifies spontaneous appearance as a model weakness associated particularly with crowded scenes. This supports recurrence as a failure mode, without quantifying its prevalence. (OpenAI, )

  4. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “And like other generative AI systems, there is no way to encode (and guarantee) constraints like “be truthful” or “obey the laws of physics”or “don’t just invent (or eliminate) objects”.”

    What we tested: Sora and other generative AI systems offer no way to encode and guarantee constraints such as truthfulness, obeying physics, or not inventing or eliminating objects.

  5. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “More data won’t solve [Sora’s] problem [with physics].”

    What we tested: More training data will not solve Sora's problems with physics.

  6. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

Held from this post (2)

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