“I do genuinely believe today’s Turing Test takers are better AI systems than an earlier generation. I hardly think that means anything is “over”.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Today's Turing Test-taking AI systems are better than the earlier generation, but that does not mean anything is 'over'.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, AI has (sort of) passed the Turing Test; here’s why that hardly matters, paragraph 3.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-ai-has-sort-of-passed-the-turing-43e4ed-a1
We recorded 9 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 2025-04-02. 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
- today’s Turing Test takers
- better AI systems than an earlier generation
- hardly think that means anything is “over”
Our interpretation
- The ordinary reading is improved overall conversational and task competence compared with pre-LLM chatbots, including Goostman. It does not require superiority on every task.
- A higher human-identification rate establishes improved imitation, but does not alone establish the broader capability comparison.
- For the ongoing state, the target is March 2025, the reporting period of the new study discussed in the post.
- The statement that nothing is 'over' expresses a judgment without a separate measurable endpoint.
Counts as supported if: Comparative evaluations establish broader conversational and task competence for the contemporary systems over the earlier chatbot generation.
Counts as contradicted if: Comparable evaluations establish that the contemporary systems have no overall capability advantage over the earlier generation.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Unresolved
The record was checked, and the evidence available by the cutoff does not settle it.
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
The evidence supports improvement in conversational imitation. That is narrower than the ordinary claim that these are better AI systems overall. The records reviewed do not settle that broader comparison with the earlier generation. The statement about nothing being 'over' has no separate measurable endpoint.
Limitations
- This is an evidence gap, not evidence that contemporary systems lack broader improvements.
- A reading restricted to humanlike conversation would receive a more favorable assessment.
Evidence (2 items)
Context only: arXiv; Cameron R. Jones and Benjamin K. Bergen,
outperforming ELIZA (22%)
Why it matters here: This supports a narrower historical improvement in conversational imitation. It concerns an earlier evaluation and does not measure overall competence.
- Where
- Abstract
- Publisher
- arXiv; Cameron R. Jones and Benjamin K. Bergen
- Kind of source
- Preprint, not peer reviewed
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: arXiv; Cameron R. Jones and Benjamin K. Bergen,
intelligence is complex and multifaceted.
Why it matters here: The study reports strong persona-prompted performance against ELIZA, while distinguishing humanlikeness from intelligence. Its results do not directly establish the broader capability comparison with Goostman.
- Publisher
- arXiv; Cameron R. Jones and Benjamin K. Bergen
- Kind of source
- Preprint, not peer reviewed
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
Comparable evaluations of contemporary and pre-LLM systems across conversational coherence, factual accuracy, reasoning, and task completion.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, AI has (sort of) passed the Turing Test; here’s why that hardly matters
I do genuinely believe today’s Turing Test takers are better AI systems than an earlier generation. I hardly think that means anything is “over”.
- Where
- paragraph 3
- Published
- 2025-04-02
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-ai-has-sort-of-passed-the-turing-43e4ed-a1: Current. Outcome: Unresolved. 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-ai-has-sort-of-passed-the-turing-43e4ed-a1.