“In all, Charlotin’s database lists 112 cases, for an average of a bit less than one publicly reported case a week since ChatGPT become popular. And if May is representative, the problem is getting worse.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Charlotin's database lists 112 cases, an average of a bit less than one publicly reported case a week since ChatGPT became popular, and if May is representative, the problem is getting worse.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, AI literacy, hallucinations, and the law: A case study, paragraph 13.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-ai-literacy-hallucinations-and-the-663c38-a2
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 2025-05-24. 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)
Conditions
- if May is representative (antecedent, stated by the speaker)
- publicly reported cases in Charlotin's database (scope, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- Charlotin’s database lists 112 cases
- a bit less than one publicly reported case a week
- since ChatGPT become popular
- if May is representative
- the problem is getting worse
Our interpretation
- The total refers to the database as it stood when the post was published on May 24, 2025.
- For the weekly calculation, November 30, 2022 is an explicit evaluator proxy for the beginning of ChatGPT’s popularity, rather than a date supplied by Marcus.
- The plain reading of the qualified trend statement is that the observed May pace, if representative, exceeds the earlier pace of publicly documented cases. It does not establish an increasing error rate per AI use.
- The representativeness clause is preserved as a qualification on a historical comparison, not treated as a forecast or an assertion that May was demonstrably representative.
- The target period covers the cumulative comparison from the chosen popularity proxy through publication. The exact database-total component concerns the endpoint specifically.
Counts as supported if: A publication-time database record establishes 112 entries; the stated averaging period yields somewhat fewer than one entry per week; and comparable dated entries show a higher May pace that would imply worsening if representative.
Counts as contradicted if: A publication-time record establishes a different total, the weekly arithmetic is materially inconsistent with the stated comparison, or comparable dated entries show that May’s pace was not higher.
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 May 25, 2025 archive displays 112 cases, including 19 May-dated decisions and 15 April-dated decisions [e1]. That snapshot does not establish the database total when the May 24 post appeared [e1]. Assuming 112 cases at publication, using the November 30, 2022 launch as a proxy for when ChatGPT became popular yields about 0.87 cases per week through May 24, 2025 [e1, e2]. These figures are consistent with the numerical claim, but decision-month counts do not establish when cases were added or publicly reported [e1]. The publication-time total and comparable reporting pace remain unverified [e1].
Limitations
- The launch date is an evaluator-selected proxy, not evidence of when ChatGPT became popular [e2].
- The snapshot does not establish May’s representativeness or an increase in hallucinations per AI use [e1].
- May’s representativeness remains a condition on the trend statement, not an independently established finding.
Evidence (2 items)
Context only: Damien Charlotin, preserved by the Internet Archive,
While seeking to be exhaustive (112 cases identified so far), it is a work in progress and will expand as new examples emerge.
Why it matters here: The nearby snapshot strongly corroborates the claimed total and contains more May than April decision entries. Its timestamp does not establish the exact state at the post’s publication, and the counts do not establish representativeness or an error rate per AI use.
- Publisher
- Damien Charlotin, preserved by the Internet Archive
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Arithmetic
- Count database rows by the displayed decision month: May = 19; April = 15. (inputs: May rows: Garner; Versant Funding; Bauche; Beenshoof; Keaau Development; Fox; Bandla; Ramirez; Case No. 72079-11-24; Jamisson Roriz; Newbern; Neusom; Raven Investigations; Israel v. Ibrahim Mahajneh; Qamar; Lacey; Harris; Ko; Rotonde.; April rows: Gustafson; Moales; Anonymous; Benjamin; Nichols; Coomer; Brown; Ferris; Sims; Bischoff; Bevins; Shekartz; Daniel Jaiyong An; Ayinde; Dehghani.; None; integer counts. These are counts in the May 25 snapshot, not independently verified publication-time counts.)
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: OpenAI,
We’ve trained a model called ChatGPT which interacts in a conversational way.
Why it matters here: The announcement supplies a transparent starting-date proxy for the weekly calculation. Assuming 112 entries at publication, the arithmetic yields about 0.87 per week; the launch date itself does not establish when ChatGPT became popular.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Arithmetic
- 112 / (906 / 7) = 0.8653421634 cases per week. (inputs: Assumed publication-time total: 112, corroborated by e1’s nearby snapshot.; Starting-date proxy: 2022-11-30.; Post date: 2025-05-24.; Elapsed interval: 906 days.; 0.87 cases per week, rounded to two decimal places; conditional on the assumed endpoint total.)
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
A timestamped database export or revision history establishing the total at publication on May 24, 2025, together with comparable entry-addition or public-reporting dates for May and earlier periods, would settle the count and qualified pace comparison under the contract’s starting-date proxy.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, AI literacy, hallucinations, and the law: A case study
In all, Charlotin’s database lists 112 cases, for an average of a bit less than one publicly reported case a week since ChatGPT become popular. And if May is representative, the problem is getting worse.
- Where
- paragraph 13
- Published
- 2025-05-24
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-ai-literacy-hallucinations-and-the-663c38-a2: 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-literacy-hallucinations-and-the-663c38-a2.