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

Gary Marcus Marcus on AI Published

Two Years Ago Today in AI History: The Tale of An About-face in AI Regulation

We recorded 13 claims from this post. 9 were checked against evidence. 4 can’t be checked. 6 more are held. Read the post at its source.

Claims from this post (13)

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: ContradictedSaid

    “Absolutely nothing is being done about AI-generated misinformation, political or medical.”

    What we tested: Nothing is being done about political or medical AI-generated misinformation.

    What happened: The decree responded to calls using a cloned Biden voice to discourage primary voting and imposed continuing verification, training and reporting duties. Its August 2024 effective date and 36-month term place those duties in force on May 16, 2025; the event date describes that continuing legal obligation, not a new enforcement action. (Federal Communications Commission, )

  2. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “AI-fueled discrimination in job decisions is likely far more rampant than before.”

    What we tested: AI-fueled discrimination in job decisions is likely far more widespread in 2025 than in 2023.

  3. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “We have no concretely implemented international AI governance, no national AI agency; we are no longer even positioned well to detect and address AI-escalated cybercrime.”

    What we tested: As of May 2025, there is no concretely implemented international AI governance and no US national AI agency, and the US is no longer even well positioned to detect and address AI-escalated cybercrime.

  4. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “By many accounts, AI-fueled scams have exploded, too, and again there is no coherent federal response.”

    What we tested: By many accounts, AI-fueled scams have exploded, and there is no coherent US federal response to them.

  5. Assessment: MixedSaid

    “Congress has failed to pass any meaningful AI regulation, and even worse, they are now actively aiming to prevent States — probably our last hope — from passing anything meaningful.”

    What we tested: Congress has passed no meaningful AI regulation and is trying to prevent states from passing meaningful AI regulation.

    What held: The agency identifies an active House committee proposal to prohibit enforcement of state AI and automated-decision laws for ten years. The committee draft independently confirms that description, supporting the state-restriction component. (California Privacy Protection Agency, )

    What did not: The release confirms passage by both chambers and describes criminal restrictions on nonconsensual intimate imagery, including AI deepfakes, plus platform removal duties. This is substantive targeted regulation under the stated reading, although it still awaited presidential signature. (US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, )

  6. Assessment: MixedSaid

    “Government officials aren’t worrying out loud about the risks of AI, anymore. They are downplaying them.”

    What we tested: US government officials now downplay rather than voice concern about AI risks.

    What held: Vance explicitly shifts emphasis from safety to opportunity and characterizes safety concern dismissively. This supports the downplaying component, although the same speech also recognizes hostile misuse of AI. (The American Presidency Project, reproducing the Office of the Vice President's speech, )

    What did not: This official speech publicly warns about AI-enabled identity fraud and discusses defenses. It contradicts the assertion that federal officials had ceased expressing substantive concern. (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, )

  7. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “Now he is doing everything he can to stop AI regulation of any meaningful sort.”

    What we tested: Sam Altman is doing everything he can to stop meaningful AI regulation.

    What happened: OpenAI endorsed legislation imposing liability for unauthorized digital replicas and certain knowing hosting. These are substantive protections, contradicting comprehensive institutional opposition to regulation of any meaningful sort. (OpenAI statement in senators' April 9 release, reproduced by Inside AI Policy, )

  8. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “(He also said at the time “we think that content creators, content owners, need to benefit from this technology” but ever since his company has been pushing for free training materials and exemption from copyright laws.)”

    What we tested: Since 2023 OpenAI has pushed for free training materials and exemption from copyright law, contrary to Altman's stated support for content creators.

    What happened: The official transcript confirms the substance of the statement Marcus quotes. (U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, )

  9. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “And even as Altman was telling Congress that he supported AI regulation, his company was lobbying the EU to water down its AI act.”

    What we tested: While Altman publicly supported AI regulation in 2023, OpenAI lobbied to water down the EU AI Act.

    What happened: Altman's written congressional testimony explicitly supports regulation. The retrieved company page carries a June 22 submission date, later than the hearing. (OpenAI, )

  10. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “The cost to humanity of being beguiled by this man may turn out to be enormous.”

    What we tested: Being beguiled by Sam Altman may turn out to have an enormous cost to humanity.

  11. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “All talk about regulation has been replaced by talk about innovation, which is really shorthand for help the companies as much as possible, no matter what it costs the citizenry.”

    What we tested: US government AI discourse has replaced regulation with 'innovation', meaning helping companies regardless of cost to citizens.

  12. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “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.”

    What we tested: Washington no longer seriously considers acting on AI risks.

    What happened: 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. (U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, )

  13. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “Gone too is a chance to avoid what Senators from Blumenthal to Graham warned about: a repeat of the mess of social media, in which big tech got its way, and society was left paying the consequences.”

    What we tested: The chance to avoid AI repeating social media's regulatory failure, where big tech got its way at society's expense, is gone.

Held from this post (6)

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