“None of this means of course that I suddenly think that we are close to super-smart machines. (Spoiler alert: we are not).”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
We are not close to super-smart machines.
Assessment: Can’t be checked Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, 𝐩(𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐦), paragraph 28.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-d28-639a26-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)
From the speaker
- we are close to super-smart machines
- we are not
- if and when we get there
Our interpretation
- The surrounding discussion suggests broadly superhuman machines, rather than systems exceeding humans on one narrow task.
- Close could refer to elapsed time, capability distance or remaining scientific obstacles.
- The post supplies neither a proximity threshold nor a sufficiently specific capability criterion.
- A later model release cannot settle this statement without first adding those missing criteria. The post’s separate hundred-year discussion of extinction is not a deadline for this claim.
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
The statement is a recommendation, a value judgment, or too open to test. It is recorded, not scored.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
The statement gives no testable meaning of close. Even reading super-smart as broadly superhuman leaves unanswered whether Marcus meant months, years, capability distance or unresolved scientific problems. Choosing a deadline and benchmark would create a new claim. Later progress therefore cannot fairly produce a supported or contradicted verdict.
Limitations
- This is not a finding that superintelligence was near or far in 2023.
- An absence of recognized superintelligence by the evaluation date would not establish this undefined claim.
Evidence (1 item)
No outcome evidence: a claim of this kind is recorded and attributed, not scored.
What would settle it
A contemporaneous clarification specifying the intended capability threshold and meaning of close.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, 𝐩(𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐦)
None of this means of course that I suddenly think that we are close to super-smart machines. (Spoiler alert: we are not).
- Where
- paragraph 28
- Published
- 2023-08-27
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-d28-639a26-a1: Current. Outcome: Can’t be checked. 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.