“Those seem reasonable to me, and I don't understand what would justify an exemption there.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Marcus finds it reasonable for SB-1047 to focus on specific critical harms, and he does not understand what would justify an exemption from those provisions.
Assessment: Can’t be checked Not checked against evidence
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, An open letter to Fei-Fei Li concerning California’s proposed AI regulation, SB-1047, paragraph 6.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence
- Not checkedboth screens found it cannot be checked
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-an-open-letter-to-fei-fei-li-concerning-90cf7a-a1
We recorded 4 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 2024-08-10. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Recommendation or value judgment
- 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
- critical harms such as mass casualties, weapons of mass destruction, large-scale cyberattacks, and AI models autonomously committing serious felonies (scope, stated by the speaker)
- seem reasonable to me (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- critical harms such as mass casualties, weapons of mass destruction, large-scale cyberattacks, and AI models autonomously committing serious felonies
- seem reasonable to me
Our interpretation
None added.
This claim is not graded on evidence. The record checks that the words are quoted correctly and attributed to the right person, and that the claim is classified correctly.
Current assessment
Not graded on evidence
Outcome: Can’t be checked
Both AI providers screened this claim on their own and found that public evidence could not settle it. It is recorded and attributed, not scored.
Why it can’t be checked
Both screens gave the same reason:
- A recommendation or a value judgment.
- Evidence
- Not checked
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
Not checked against evidence. Two independent screens, one from each provider, both found this a recommendation or a value judgment.
Limitations
None recorded.
Evidence (0 items)
No evidence was searched for. Both screens found that public evidence could not settle this claim.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, An open letter to Fei-Fei Li concerning California’s proposed AI regulation, SB-1047
Those seem reasonable to me, and I don't understand what would justify an exemption there.
- Where
- paragraph 6
- Published
- 2024-08-10
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-an-open-letter-to-fei-fei-li-concerning-90cf7a-a1: Current. Outcome: Can’t be checked. Not checked against evidence. 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-an-open-letter-to-fei-fei-li-concerning-90cf7a-a1.