“But if and when we get there, will they be dominating? Non-dominating? The honest answer is we haven’t a clue.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Marcus says that, honestly, we haven't a clue whether super-smart machines, if and when we get there, will be dominating or non-dominating.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, 𝐩(𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐦), paragraph 29.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-d28-3d7576-a1
We recorded 24 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 2023-08-27. 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 and when we get there (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- if and when we get there
- dominating? Non-dominating?
- we haven’t a clue
Our interpretation
- This concerns knowledge at publication, not a conditional prediction requiring superintelligence to exist first.
- The ordinary reading is that researchers could not reliably determine whether future superintelligent machines would dominate humans. It need not mean that no relevant reasoning existed.
- For this ongoing research question, the target period is 2023 through publication, the latest partial calendar year publicly reportable before the post. Research has no standard quarterly reporting period.
Counts as supported if: A sufficiently comprehensive assessment of research available at publication establishes that neither domination nor continued human control could be reliably determined.
Counts as contradicted if: Research available at publication reliably establishes either outcome for future superintelligent machines, with assumptions shown to apply beyond a restricted mathematical model.
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 research inspected supports substantial uncertainty, but it also contains formal results relevant to power seeking. Those results expressly stop short of proving what hypothetical superintelligent agents would do. This does not settle Marcus's broader statement about the entire state of knowledge. A literal reading of no clues is stronger than the ordinary reading of no reliable answer.
Limitations
- The search cannot establish a universal absence of applicable research.
- Conditional mathematical findings do not by themselves predict actual future systems.
Evidence (1 item)
Context only: arXiv; Alexander Matt Turner and colleagues,
do not mathematically prove
Why it matters here: The revised manuscript supplies formal evidence about power-seeking incentives under specified assumptions, while expressly limiting the inference to future superintelligence. It supports uncertainty but also shows why a literal claim of having no clues would be too strong.
- Where
- Conclusion
- Publisher
- arXiv; Alexander Matt Turner and colleagues
- Kind of source
- Preprint, not peer reviewed
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
A comprehensive assessment of the pre-publication literature establishing whether a reliable basis existed for determining domination or continued human control.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, 𝐩(𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐦)
But if and when we get there, will they be dominating? Non-dominating? The honest answer is we haven’t a clue.
- Where
- paragraph 29
- Published
- 2023-08-27
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-d28-3d7576-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.