“But it’s becoming increasingly clear that they are struggling in building a model worthy of the GPT-5 name.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
OpenAI is struggling to build a model worthy of the GPT-5 name.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, AGI isn’t coming in 2025, and GPT-5 probably isn’t either., paragraph 6.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-agi-isnt-coming-in-2025-and-gpt-5-3af826-a2
We recorded 8 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2025-01-09. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- they are struggling
- in building a model worthy of the GPT-5 name
- it's becoming increasingly clear
Our interpretation
- Read as: by early January 2025, credible reporting showed that OpenAI's effort to build its next-generation model (GPT-5, code-named Orion) was running into trouble. That means delays, smaller-than-hoped gains, or high costs relative to results.
- He named no period. I use late 2024 through the post date, when reports on Orion's development came out.
Counts as supported if: Credible reporting from late 2024 to early January 2025 describes delays, disappointing gains, or cost problems in OpenAI's GPT-5/Orion development.
Counts as contradicted if: Credible reporting from the period shows GPT-5/Orion development on schedule and meeting expectations, or OpenAI shipped a model widely seen as worthy of the GPT-5 name in that period.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Supported
The dated evidence matches what the claim committed to, under the criteria frozen before grading.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
In the two months before the post, two major outlets reported trouble with OpenAI's next model. In November 2024, The Information, citing OpenAI staff, said Orion's gains over GPT-4 were far smaller than the jump from GPT-3 to GPT-4. In December 2024, the WSJ said GPT-5 was behind schedule, that training ran slower than expected, and that results did not yet justify the cost. That fits the plain reading of 'struggling to build a model worthy of the GPT-5 name'. The reports also say the model beat its predecessors, so the problem was the size of the gains, not a failure to improve.
Limitations
- Rests on anonymous-source news reports summarized by secondary outlets.
- 'Worthy of the GPT-5 name' is subjective.
Evidence (2 items)
Supports the claim: TechRadar (summarizing The Information),
the increase in quality seen with Orion is ‘far smaller’ than that witnessed when moving from GPT-3 to GPT-4.
Why it matters here: Reports from OpenAI staff, via The Information, said Orion's gains over GPT-4 were much smaller than past generational leaps.
- Publisher
- TechRadar (summarizing The Information)
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: TechCrunch (summarizing The Wall Street Journal),
An initial training run went slower than expected, hinting that a larger run would be both time-consuming and costly. And while GPT-5 can reportedly perform better than its predecessors, it hasn’t yet advanced enough to justify the cost of keeping the model running.
Why it matters here: The WSJ reported slow training runs and results not yet good enough to justify the cost. That fits 'struggling'. It also notes the model beat its predecessors.
- Where
- paragraph 3
- Publisher
- TechCrunch (summarizing The Wall Street Journal)
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, AGI isn’t coming in 2025, and GPT-5 probably isn’t either.
But it’s becoming increasingly clear that they are struggling in building a model worthy of the GPT-5 name.
- Where
- paragraph 6
- Published
- 2025-01-09
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-agi-isnt-coming-in-2025-and-gpt-5-3af826-a2: Current. Outcome: Supported. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-agi-isnt-coming-in-2025-and-gpt-5-3af826-a2.