“People aren’t ignoring GenAI; they are waiting to see if it will work.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
People are not ignoring generative AI; they are waiting to see whether it will work.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, AI influencer hype gone wild, paragraph 8.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-ai-influencer-hype-gone-wild-2d8f86-a2
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2024-10-31. 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
- People aren't ignoring GenAI
- they are waiting to see if it will work
Our interpretation
- Read as a summary of the state in late 2024: generative AI was being widely tried or adopted, and many adopters were still unsure of its value.
- It is assessed mainly against the business evidence he cites (CNBC survey), with national adoption data as a check on 'not ignoring.'
- Target period is August to October 2024, the latest survey data before the post. He named no period.
Counts as supported if: Late-2024 surveys show broad and fast uptake of generative AI, with a large share of adopters saying it was too early to judge its value or still testing it.
Counts as contradicted if: Late-2024 surveys show little uptake or interest, or show that adopters had already settled on a clear verdict rather than waiting.
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
Read as a summary of late 2024, the claim fits the evidence. In CNBC's October 2024 survey of tech leaders, 79% of firms used Copilot. A third of companies were still in the testing phase, and half of respondents said it was too soon to know whether it was worth the cost. That is adoption paired with wait-and-see. Nationally, the St. Louis Fed found that generative AI uptake two years after launch outpaced that of PCs and the internet, so it was not being ignored. One caveat: about 60% of US adults aged 18 to 64 had not used it as of August 2024. The 'waiting to see' part is best shown for businesses, not for the whole public.
Limitations
- 'People' is undefined; the strongest evidence covers businesses.
- No direct measure of non-users' reasons for not using it.
- The CNBC sample is small and not representative.
Evidence (4 items)
Supports the claim: CNBC (syndicated by NBC San Diego),
another a third of companies say they remain in the testing phase.
Why it matters here: A third of the firms were still testing. That fits 'waiting to see if it will work.'
- Where
- paragraph 7
- Publisher
- CNBC (syndicated by NBC San Diego)
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: CNBC (syndicated by NBC San Diego),
50% of respondents said it is still too soon to know.
Why it matters here: Half of the tech leaders said it was too soon to judge Copilot's value. That directly supports 'waiting to see.'
- Where
- paragraph 9
- Publisher
- CNBC (syndicated by NBC San Diego)
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,
two years after the mass introduction of generative AI, its adoption rate already exceeds that of the PC and internet at comparable points in time.
Why it matters here: At the national level, uptake was faster than for PCs or the internet, so generative AI was not being ignored.
- Publisher
- Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,
in August 2024 almost 40% of the U.S. population ages 18 to 64 used generative AI to some degree
Why it matters here: About 60% of US working-age adults had not used it. This limits how far 'not ignoring' extends to the whole public.
- Publisher
- Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, AI influencer hype gone wild
People aren’t ignoring GenAI; they are waiting to see if it will work.
- Where
- paragraph 8
- Published
- 2024-10-31
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-ai-influencer-hype-gone-wild-2d8f86-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-ai-influencer-hype-gone-wild-2d8f86-a2.