ClaimsGary Marcus

“Happy birthday deep neural nets! You are (in your celebrated rebirth) nearly 10 years old now, and still utterly fooled by images like this.”

Gary Marcus, author of the post 15 November 2021 Post by @GaryMarcus on X, 2021-11-15 (X)

Factual AI capabilities

Deep neural nets, nearly 10 years after their celebrated rebirth, are still utterly fooled by images like the one shown.

Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.

Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?

The second judge said resolved true; the verdict shown is the first judge's.

What would count as true or false

Judged as of 2021-11-15. True: deep neural nets had their widely recognised revival about 10 years earlier (around 2011–2012, e.g. AlexNet), and evidence from 2021 shows that leading deep image classifiers were still routinely fooled by adversarial or unusual images of the kind shown. Mostly true: the core claim holds with a small slip, such as a revival date one or two years off from 'nearly 10 years'. Mixed: the models were still fooled by some types of images but by 2021 resisted the specific type shown fairly well. Mostly false: the vulnerability was real only for narrow, older or undefended models, and the claim presents it as general. False: evidence shows that 2021 state-of-the-art vision models were robust to such images.

Set before the research began.

Evidence (4)

  1. E1 Natural Adversarial Examples ar5iv (arXiv paper 1907.07174, Hendrycks et al.)

    “On ImageNet-A a DenseNet-121 obtains around 2% accuracy, an accuracy drop of approximately 90%, and its out-of-distribution detection performance on ImageNet-O is near random chance levels.”
  2. E2 Rethinking Natural Adversarial Examples for Classification Models ar5iv (arXiv paper 2102.11731, Li et al., Tsinghua/Huawei)

    “A detection model based on the classification model EfficientNet-B7 achieved a top-1 accuracy of 53.95%, surpassing previous state-of-the-art classification models trained on ImageNet”
  3. E3 Rethinking Natural Adversarial Examples for Classification Models ar5iv (arXiv paper 2102.11731, Li et al., Tsinghua/Huawei)

    “Figure 9 shows some examples that EfficientNet-B7 with AdvProp [9], one of the best DNN models nowadays, still failed to recognize.”
  4. E4 How Did AlexNet Transform AI? Explore the Groundbreaking Source Code IEEE Spectrum (republishing a Computer History Museum blog post by Hansen Hsu) · 21 March 2025

    “In partnership with Google, the Computer History Museum (CHM) has released the source code to AlexNet, the neural network that in 2012 kickstarted today’s prevailing approach to AI.”

Reasoning

E4 dates the deep-learning revival to AlexNet in 2012, so "nearly 10 years" by November 2021 fits. E1 reports that an ImageNet classifier fell to about 2% accuracy on unmodified natural adversarial images. E3, a 2021 paper, says EfficientNet-B7 with AdvProp, described as one of the best models of the time, still failed to recognise such examples. E2 gives 53.95% top-1 accuracy for a strong model, but the quote does not name the benchmark, so it shows only indirectly how often leading models still failed. The evidence does not show the specific image Marcus posted, so we can't confirm that models were fooled by exactly that type of image, which keeps the verdict at mostly true.

Cite this claim

Gary Marcus, “Deep neural nets, nearly 10 years after their celebrated rebirth, are still utterly fooled by images like the one shown.” (said 15 November 2021). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_4b9cd919557f, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_4b9cd919557f

This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.

Reply to this claim

For Gary Marcus, or someone speaking for them: a correction or counter-evidence. Replies are read before anything is shown; an approved reply shows your name, role, date, statement and link. Your email address is never shown and is deleted 30 days after the decision (privacy).

More factual claims by Gary Marcus

  1. Mostly true Factual January 2026
    “Reviews by Joanna Stern and Marques Brownle of one early prototype were damning;”

    Reviews by Joanna Stern and Marques Brownlee of one early humanoid robot prototype were damning.

  2. Mostly true Factual January 2026
    “Many would agree we have reached a point of diminishing returns for scaling; faith in scaling as a route to AGI has dissipated.”

    Many would agree the AI field has reached a point of diminishing returns from scaling, and faith in scaling as a route to AGI has dissipated.

  3. Mostly true Factual January 2026
    “Despite all the hype, agents didn’t turn out to be reliable.”

    AI agents did not turn out to be reliable in 2025.

  4. Mixed Factual 2025
    “but the systems don’t have the knowledge graph to do that.”

    Current AI systems lack the knowledge graph needed to handle easy facts like those on the first page of Wikipedia.

  5. Resolved true Factual 2025
    “Hasn’t worked so far. That’s for sure.”

    Bolting extra components onto an LLM and scaling it up has so far not produced human-level AGI.

All of them

Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.