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?
67 61 73 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
60 44 76 -
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: 66 (likely 61 to 72, high confidence), from 105 claims: 94 factual claims, 11 predictions. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Marc Andreessen's claims
50 claims
“There is a critical mass of AI development basically in two places in the world.”
Marc Andreessen, venture capitalist, interviewee 2 September 2023 Marc Andreessen on Why AI Will Save the World (EconTalk)
AI development has a critical mass basically in two places in the world, the United States and China.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
Judge as of 2023-09-02. True: credible measures of AI development as of 2023 (leading models, research output, AI investment, compute, talent; for example the Stanford AI Index) show the US and China clearly ahead of all other countries, forming the two main concentrations. Mostly true: the US and China clearly lead, but one or two other places (for example the UK or EU) have a notable though much smaller presence. Mixed: the US and China lead on some measures, but other regions are comparable on several key measures. Mostly false: AI development is substantially spread across three or more major centers, with the US/China duopoly overstated. False: the US and China are not the two leading AI centers.
Evidence
- CHAPTER 1: Index Report 2024 Research and Development Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI (HAI) · 2024
“In 2023, 61 notable AI models originated from U.S.-based institutions, far outpacing the European Union’s 21 and China’s 15.”
- CHAPTER 4: Index Report 2024 Economy - hai.stanford.edu Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI (HAI) · 2024
“In 2023, the United States saw AI investments reach $67.2 billion, nearly 8.7 times more than China, the next”
- CHAPTER 4: Index Report 2024 Economy - hai.stanford.edu Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI (HAI) · 2024
“companies, followed by China with 122, and the United Kingdom with 104 (Figure 4.3.12).”
- Research and Development Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI (HAI)
“China continues to lead in total AI journal, conference, and repository publications.”
Reasoning
The Stanford AI Index data mostly supports the claim, though not on every measure. The US leads by a wide margin: in 2023 its AI investment was about 8.7 times China's, and China is named the next-highest investor (E2). China leads in total AI publications (E4) and is second in newly funded AI companies (E3). Other places do have a notable presence. The EU, counted as a bloc, produced more notable AI models in 2023 than China (21 vs 15) (E1), and the UK, with 104 newly funded AI companies, was close behind China's 122 (E3). On balance this fits the "mostly true" criterion: the US and China lead on most of the cited measures, while the EU and UK have a notable presence on some, with the EU ahead of China on notable models [E1] and the UK close behind China on newly funded AI companies [E3].
Cite this claim
Marc Andreessen, “AI development has a critical mass basically in two places in the world, the United States and China.” (said 2 September 2023). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_b1a129e80f65, method 0.1.0+c876030c. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_b1a129e80f65
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Marc Andreessen? 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.