Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
83 78 88 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
Insufficient record: 2 predictions resolved, 5 needed for a score.
-
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
Insufficient record: 0 promises resolved, 5 needed for a score.
All types combined: 83 (likely 78 to 88, high confidence), from 86 claims: 86 factual claims. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Daniela Amodei's claims
38 claims
“there's no required disclosure of when you're interacting with an AI system versus a human”
Daniela Amodei, Anthropic president, interview 4 March 2022 Daniela and Dario Amodei on Anthropic (Future of Life Institute)
As of 2022 there is no required disclosure of whether a person is interacting with an AI system or a human.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
What would count as true or false
Judge as of 2022-03-04, read in the context of the US discussion. True: no generally applicable law or regulation in force at that date required disclosure that a person is interacting with an AI system rather than a human. Mostly true: no general requirement existed, but narrow ones did, such as California's 2019 bot disclosure law (SB 1001) limited to bots used to sell goods or influence elections, or proposals not yet in force. Mixed: disclosure requirements in force covered a substantial share of common AI-human interactions in the relevant jurisdiction. Mostly false: binding disclosure requirements in force applied broadly enough that the statement badly overstates the gap. False: a broadly applicable binding requirement to disclose AI interaction was in force in the jurisdiction discussed at that date.
Evidence
- Bot or Not: California Mandates Disclosure of Online Accounts Used by Bots | Data Protection Lewis Rice · 11 February 2019
“The law, which takes effect on July 1, 2019, requires that any automated online account, which constitutes a “bot,” conspicuously identify itself as a bot if it is being used to engage a person in California in order to influence the person to make a purchase or vote.”
- Is There Anybody Behind That Bot? | Davis Wright Tremaine Davis Wright Tremaine · 7 February 2019
“prohibits automated online accounts (commonly known as “bots”) from communicating with a person to incentivize that person in California to purchase goods or services, or to influence a vote in an election”
- AI Act enters into force European Commission · 1 August 2024
“On 1 August 2024, the European Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) enters into force.”
Reasoning
E1 shows that California's bot disclosure law took effect on July 1, 2019, and E2 describes its scope. It required automated online accounts to identify themselves as bots only when used to influence a purchase or a vote, so it was a narrow requirement already in force by 2022-03-04. E3 shows the broader EU AI Act entered into force only on 1 August 2024, after the judgment date. The evidence shows a narrow requirement and no general one, which matches the criteria's 'mostly true' category, though no source directly confirms that no general US requirement existed.
Cite this claim
Daniela Amodei, “As of 2022 there is no required disclosure of whether a person is interacting with an AI system or a human.” (said 4 March 2022). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_15aa0f4ea4db, method 0.1.0+28da144b. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_15aa0f4ea4db
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Daniela Amodei? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.