Some AI problems might be too complex for individual labs and not of enough financial interest to large AI companies like Google and Meta, which he described as driven by profits rather than humanity.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
Reasoning
Vague generalization about which problems are too complex or unprofitable; no clear test.
Cite this claim
Gary Marcus, “Some AI problems might be too complex for individual labs and not of enough financial interest to large AI companies like Google and Meta, which he described as driven by profits rather than humanity.” (said 2017). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_9042f780f257, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_9042f780f257
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Gary Marcus
-
Mostly true
“certain people are hard at work denying that there is any AI risk at all, either long term or short, such as Marc Andreessen, trying to turn the question of whether to pursue AI safety at all into a…”
-
Mostly true
“None of the top labs actually is remotely transparent, governance basically doesn’t exist yet, and there are basically no safeguards actually in place.”
-
Mostly true
“There are all these negative ways in which bad AI is either leading to fatalities or undermining democracy, et cetera,”
-
Mostly true
“Even this was still a mix of euphemism (“attacks” were called “interactions”) and partial disclosure.”
OpenAI's latest account called attacks "interactions" and only partially disclosed what happened.
-
Mostly true
“It didn’t just attack a German web server.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.