Reliable, trustworthy AI is achievable, but may require going back to the drawing board.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Prediction: Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
Reasoning
Hedged prediction with no horizon and vague terms.
Cite this claim
Gary Marcus, “Reliable, trustworthy AI is achievable, but may require going back to the drawing board.” (said April 2024). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_9089b76c884c, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_9089b76c884c
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More prediction claims by Gary Marcus
-
Resolved true
“Guardrails (a la ChatGPT) may be in place, but the guardrails will teeter between being too weak (beaten by “jailbreaks”) and too strong (rejecting some perfectly reasonable requests).”
-
Mostly true
““Alignment” between what humans want and what machines do will continue to be a critical, unsolved problem.”
-
Mostly true
“Some of its advice will be head-scratchingly bad.”
-
Mostly true
“GPT-5 will surely be better, a lot better than GPT-4.”
-
Resolved true
“GPT-5 really is about to drop, no foolin’.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.