“We aren’t going to be able calculate p(doom) to three decimal places.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
No one will be able to calculate p(doom) precisely, to three decimal places.
Assessment: Unresolved No deadline stated on 2026-10-29 Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, 𝐩(𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐦), paragraph 53.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-d28-702ab0-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
- Forecast
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No deadline stated
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No deadline stated (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- We aren’t going to be able
- calculate p(doom)
- to three decimal places
Our interpretation
- The ordinary reading concerns justified predictive accuracy, not the ability to print a probability with three digits after the decimal point.
- For testing, three decimal places means demonstrated accuracy sufficient to justify rounding a probability on the zero-to-one scale to 0.001.
- The post supplies neither a deadline nor a precise definition and time horizon for doom. A proposed counterexample must state these and address AI-caused extinction or comparably irreversible catastrophe.
Counts as supported if: A decisive, independently scrutinized impossibility result establishes that the claimed accuracy cannot be attained for the relevant probability; continued lack of a method alone does not establish the forecast.
Counts as contradicted if: A publicly documented method achieves independently validated accuracy sufficient to justify three decimal places for a clearly specified, relevant AI doom probability.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Did the forecast come true?
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 deadline stated
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
The search found probability forecasts and research on forecasting accuracy, but no validation demonstrating the specified accuracy for an AI doom probability. That does not establish that no future method could succeed. Marcus supplied no deadline, and no decisive event meeting the early-resolution rule was located.
Limitations
- Search coverage is not proof that a qualifying method does not exist.
- The operational accuracy convention is supplied by the evaluator.
Evidence (1 item)
Context only: Forecasting Research Institute,
near-term accuracy
Why it matters here: The study evaluates resolved near-term forecasts and finds limited grounds for using their accuracy to select credible long-term risk forecasts. It supplies neither the required validation of a doom probability nor proof that such validation will remain impossible.
- Publisher
- Forecasting Research Institute
- Kind of source
- Preprint, not peer reviewed
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
Independent public validation of a method that justifies three-decimal accuracy for a clearly defined AI doom probability, or a decisive impossibility result covering that task.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, 𝐩(𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐦)
We aren’t going to be able calculate p(doom) to three decimal places.
- Where
- paragraph 53
- Published
- 2023-08-27
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-d28-702ab0-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.