Claims checked against evidence, page 9 of 31
Claims by Gary Marcus and Ed Zitron. Deadlines are judged as of 2026-10-29.
Claims checked against evidence (3100)
Each of these claims was checked against dated evidence.
Page 9 of 31: claims 801 to 900 of 3100, ordered by the date first said, newest first. To find a claim by its words, use search.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“This study reinforces what Anh Totti Nguyen has been saying for a long time, in a series of underappreciated papers like Vision Language Models are Blind that I keep trying to draw attention to.”
What happened: The study reports strong image-free benchmark performance and fabricated visual descriptions. Its published conclusion corroborates the broader warning that benchmark success can overstate visual understanding; the event date identifies the publication of this finding. (arXiv, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“Somebody spending $20 a month on a Claude subscription can spend as much as $163 in compute.”
What happened: The tables report a $20 Pro plan, five million weekly credits and approximately $163 of monthly API-equivalent capacity. The author derives limits from usage responses and token weights from collected observations; this is a capacity estimate, not a disclosure of Anthropic's costs. (she-llac, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: ContradictedSaid
“Know that LLMs cannot do many of the things that people talk about — they do not blackmail people, no GPT-4 did not trick a taskrabbit, and every single time an AI CEO says AI “will” do something you should spit in their fucking face for making shit up not print it without a second’s thought.”
What happened: The report attributes this false explanation to GPT-4 after the worker questioned whether it was a robot, and records that the human supplied the results. This contradicts the denial of behavioral deception in the reported interaction. (OpenAI, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: ContradictedSaid
“Absolutely none of these companies have a plan.”
What happened: Replit explains that charges scale with its computing costs, rejects subsidized usage as its business approach, and describes further efficiency improvements. This is a concrete economic plan, although its success is not established by the announcement. (Replit, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: ContradictedSaid
“First, there’s no way to anticipate how many tokens a prompt will actually burn, which makes any kind of budgeting a non-starter.”
What happened: Anthropic documented a way to constrain monthly API expenditure before the post. This contradicts the claim that every form of budgeting is unavailable, but does not guarantee that a task finishes before its budget is exhausted. (Anthropic, )
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“Uber is a completely different business to Anthropic and OpenAI or any other AI company.”
What happened: Uber describes connecting riders, merchants, couriers, shippers and carriers. The report also identifies Uber One memberships and service costs that vary with activity, limiting any stronger interpretation that Uber shares no commercial features or variable costs with AI providers. (Uber Technologies, Inc., )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: MixedSaid
“Hassabis is no longer on board either, and nor are Sutskever and LeCun. Nadella and Pichai have also hinted at skepticism around scaling.”
What held: In this original interview, Sutskever disputes the idea that multiplying current scale by 100 would transform everything and calls for renewed research. This supports Marcus's characterization of his departure from reliance on scaling alone, without implying that scaling produces no improvements. (Dwarkesh Patel, )
What did not: Hassabis explicitly retained scaled current systems as a possible complete route to AGI, contradicting an unqualified attribution of rejection. The report also says he suspected additional breakthroughs would be needed, so his position includes genuine doubt. (AOL, Lakshmi Varanasi, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“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.”
What happened: Section 1 argues that larger datasets and computation require a more fundamental rethink to achieve reliable intelligence. The four-part program summarized immediately before this sentence explicitly includes hybrid neural-symbolic architectures and cognitive models. (arXiv, )
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“the fact that LLMs hallucinate (patently true)”
What happened: OpenAI reports hallucinations in its release evaluation, including after improvements. The reported reductions imply residual hallucinations; they are not claims of elimination. (OpenAI, )
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“It is a misapprehension of LLMs to confuse the things they say with what is true.”
What happened: Table 2 records eight hallucinations for moonshotai/kimi-k2 on February 1, checked by the biographical subject. The same day's Claude Opus 4.5 result has zero, showing that the finding concerns fallibility rather than universal failure. (Martin Monperrus, )
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“Essentially the same argument applies to Claude’s constitution, which amounts to a set of built-in guardrails. OpenAI has those, too!”
What happened: Anthropic directly connects the constitution to model training. The same announcement describes safety priorities and hard behavioral constraints, supporting the broad guardrails reading. (Anthropic, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“How about copyright? OpenAI notoriously trained on practically anything that is “publicly available” whether public domain or not.”
What happened: OpenAI describes its public-internet training practice and invokes fair use rather than limiting that practice to public-domain material. This is the company's legal position, not a court finding. (OpenAI, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“The public anger on social media is growing fast. A major boycott is afoot:”
What happened: The reporter describes rapidly spreading boycott calls in the days leading up to the March 3 protest. This supports qualitative growth in social-media opposition, although it supplies no platform-wide count. (Business Insider, republished by AOL, )
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“Using a system you shouldn’t trust with your taxes to blow people up. 2026 in a nutshell.”
What happened: The surrounding text identifies the tools as Anthropic's Claude and connects their use to the Iran bombardment that began February 28. This supports operational targeting assistance; the account relies on other reporting rather than public military records. The availability date conservatively uses the page's last modification date. (The Guardian, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“For some context, OpenAI raised around $42bn in 2025 alone.”
What happened: SoftBank confirms completed aggregate funding of $41 billion, including third-party investors. This falls within the contract's approximation tolerance without adding an uncompleted investment. (SoftBank Group, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“Both of these companies are enthusiastic parts of America’s war machine.”
What happened: Anthropic described existing military deployments and explicitly endorsed continuing that work. The same statement opposed domestic mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons, qualifying the breadth of its support. (Anthropic, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“And of course Generative AI still has problems with common sense, as an endless of stream of examples have shown, this one involving circulating on X today:”
What happened: Most current models failed a trivial common-sense question, repeatedly, in February 2026. (Opper, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“It’s one thing for the government to reject Anthropic’s terms—and entirely another to banish them permanently and, absurdly and punitively declare them a supply chain risk.”
What happened: The record reproduces the President's government-wide exclusion and Hegseth's supply-chain-risk directive, including this closing sentence. The court describes the February directives as a permanent bar subject to a six-month transition, while separately dating the formal designation to March. (US District Court for the Northern District of California, )
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“The company ripped off a lot of writer’s work (per the $1.5B settlement), and recently walked back its core safety pledge.”
What happened: The court describes substantial copying and identifies 482,460 settlement works in footnote 2. The underlying LibGen and PiLiMi acquisitions occurred in 2021 and 2022, as detailed in the June opinion cited in e3. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, )
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“Anthropic refused to back down.”
What happened: Amodei explicitly refused the requested removal of safeguards despite threatened penalties. The same statement remained open to continued military work with those safeguards. (Anthropic, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“And yet, the myth that LLMs are an existential threat to existing software companies has taken root in the market, sending the share prices of the legacy incumbents tumbling.”
What happened: Reuters reports broad declines, including more than 5% in Salesforce, ServiceNow, and Adobe, and identifies AI fears through trader and analyst accounts. It also attributes SAP's preceding sharp fall to disappointing cloud guidance, limiting any claim that AI fears explain every decline. (Reuters, syndicated by Radio USA, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“It is both peculiar and worrying that 36% (around $77.7 billion) of its $215.938 billion in FY2026 revenue came from two customers.”
What happened: The following direct-customer disclosure reports shares of 22% and 14%. Applied to reported annual revenue of $215.938 billion, these imply approximately $77.7 billion. (NVIDIA, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid