“Yet a really large fraction of the AI and AI-adjacent community doesn’t really want to talk about any of this at all.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
A large fraction of the AI and AI-adjacent community does not want to discuss AI doom or catastrophe risk at all.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, 𝐩(𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐦), paragraph 11.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-d28-9dbc35-a2
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
- a really large fraction
- the AI and AI-adjacent community
- doesn’t really want to talk about any of this at all
Our interpretation
- The claim concerns willingness to discuss AI extinction and catastrophe risks, rather than belief that those risks are substantial.
- A really large fraction means a substantial share, without imposing an unstated majority threshold.
- The present-tense observation concerns August 2023 through the post date. There is no standard reporting period for this attitude.
- Public disagreement, low risk estimates and survey nonresponse do not by themselves establish unwillingness to discuss the subject.
Counts as supported if: Representative evidence from the target period shows that a substantial share of the relevant community rejects discussing these risks.
Counts as contradicted if: Representative evidence from the target period directly measures willingness to discuss these risks and shows that resistance is confined to a small share.
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
AI Impacts collected survey responses from June 12 to August 3, 2022, before the target period; its risk and safety questions did not directly measure willingness to discuss these risks [e1]. Bengio’s August 12, 2023 post describes disagreement among researchers, but does not measure how widespread unwillingness to discuss risk was [e2]. Neither item establishes whether a substantial share of the relevant community resisted discussion during August 1–27, 2023 [e1, e2].
Limitations
- The packet contains no representative measurement of willingness to discuss these risks during the target period.
- Survey nonresponse and disagreement about risk do not establish unwillingness to discuss it.
- The evidence does not establish prevalence across the broader AI-adjacent community.
Evidence (2 items)
Context only: AI Impacts,
for a 17% response rate.
Why it matters here: Respondents answered questions about extinction risks and safety priorities. The survey predates the target period, and its nonrespondents cannot be classified as unwilling to discuss risk.
- Where
- Methods, Population
- Publisher
- AI Impacts
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Yoshua Bengio,
We disagree strongly
Why it matters here: Bengio describes disagreement and psychological barriers within the research community. This is an individual account, not a population estimate of refusal to discuss risk.
- Where
- Opening paragraph
- Publisher
- Yoshua Bengio
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
Representative evidence from August 1–27, 2023, with a defined community, sampling method and response rate, directly distinguishing unwillingness to discuss risk from skepticism about it. It would need to show whether resistance involved a substantial share or was confined to a small share.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, 𝐩(𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐦)
Yet a really large fraction of the AI and AI-adjacent community doesn’t really want to talk about any of this at all.
- Where
- paragraph 11
- Published
- 2023-08-27
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-d28-9dbc35-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.