“These characters (especially perhaps the latter two) might or might not be argued to be sentient, but it seems to be that they are flexible, resourceful, reliably (in a way that LLMs certainly aren’t), and adaptive.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
LLMs are certainly not reliable in the way general intelligences like the Star Trek computer would be.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, AGI will not happen in your lifetime. Or will it?, paragraph 61.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-agi-will-not-happen-in-your-lifetime-b4017e-a1
We recorded 28 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-29. The source may have been edited after 2023-01-22. 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
- reliably
- in a way that LLMs certainly aren't
- compared with the Star Trek computer, C-3PO, Samantha in Her
Our interpretation
- Plain reading: as of January 2023, large language models such as ChatGPT were not reliable. They often gave wrong answers and behaved inconsistently, so they fell well short of the dependable general assistants of fiction.
- The target period is from the ChatGPT launch (30 November 2022) to the post date. That was the most recent state of LLMs that public evidence could report on before the post.
Counts as supported if: Contemporary evidence, especially from the developers themselves, that leading LLMs in late 2022 and early 2023 often produced incorrect or inconsistent outputs and could not be relied on.
Counts as contradicted if: Evidence that leading LLMs at the time were consistently accurate and dependable across varied tasks.
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
Marcus said LLMs were 'certainly' not reliable the way fictional general AIs are. OpenAI's own ChatGPT launch post (November 2022) says the model 'sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers'. It also says the model gives different answers to slight rewordings of the same question. In December 2022, CEO Sam Altman warned that ChatGPT was not for reliable answers to factual questions. These statements by the leading developer, all dated before the post, support the claim that LLMs at the time were not reliable.
Limitations
- 'Reliably' is qualitative. The comparison is to fictional characters, so only the plain reading (frequent errors and inconsistency) is testable.
- The evidence covers ChatGPT mainly, as the most prominent LLM at the time.
Evidence (3 items)
Supports the claim: OpenAI,
ChatGPT sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers.
Why it matters here: The developer of the leading LLM admitted that it produces incorrect or nonsensical answers.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: OpenAI,
ChatGPT is sensitive to tweaks to the input phrasing or attempting the same prompt multiple times.
Why it matters here: Inconsistency across small rewordings of the same prompt is a direct sign of unreliability.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: THE DECODER,
For creative inspiration, ChatGPT is great, but not for reliable answers to factual questions, he said.
Why it matters here: OpenAI's CEO said in December 2022 that ChatGPT should not be relied on for factual answers.
- Publisher
- THE DECODER
- 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 will not happen in your lifetime. Or will it?
These characters (especially perhaps the latter two) might or might not be argued to be sentient, but it seems to be that they are flexible, resourceful, reliably (in a way that LLMs certainly aren’t), and adaptive.
- Where
- paragraph 61
- Published
- 2023-01-22
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-agi-will-not-happen-in-your-lifetime-b4017e-a1: 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-will-not-happen-in-your-lifetime-b4017e-a1.