“Some of the specific arguments Yudkowsky and Bostrom have made may well be weak, but there is no solid argument that the number is zero, or even that the risk is infinitesimal.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
There is no solid argument that AI doom risk is zero or even infinitesimal, though some arguments by Yudkowsky and Bostrom may be weak.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, 𝐩(𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐦), paragraph 39.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-d28-ecc4a5-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
- there is no solid argument
- the number is zero
- the risk is infinitesimal
- Some of the specific arguments ... may well be weak
Our interpretation
- The firm assertion concerns the absence of a defensible argument establishing zero or negligible AI extinction risk at publication.
- Solid means reasoning with justified premises and conclusions that cover AI extinction risk broadly. It does not require unanimity or a mathematical proof.
- The concession that particular arguments may be weak is hedged and is not separately scored.
- The target period is 2023 through publication, the latest partial calendar year publicly reportable for this ongoing debate.
Counts as supported if: A sufficiently comprehensive examination of relevant arguments shows that none establishes zero or negligible overall AI extinction risk on justified premises.
Counts as contradicted if: At least one publicly available argument establishes zero or negligible overall AI extinction risk on justified premises, rather than merely challenging one proposed mechanism.
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 search found skeptical arguments and persistent disagreement. The skeptical argument inspected challenges one mechanism while retaining other catastrophic possibilities, so it does not refute Marcus's claim about total extinction risk. But neither disagreement nor the absence of a decisive rebuttal in this search establishes that no solid negligible-risk argument existed.
Limitations
- A broad negative claim about all arguments cannot be established by sampling a few positions.
- Argument quality and negligible risk lack explicit thresholds here.
Evidence (2 items)
Context only: Forecasting Research Institute,
disagreement
Why it matters here: The tournament documents persistent disagreement among forecasters and experts. Its observations concern 2022 and are context only; disagreement does not establish the validity or invalidity of negligible-risk arguments.
- Where
- Abstract
- Publisher
- Forecasting Research Institute
- Kind of source
- Preprint, not peer reviewed
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: LessWrong; titotal,
fanatical maximisers
Why it matters here: This original informal argument challenges a takeover mechanism using selection pressures during development. It assumes slow takeoff and difficult world takeover, and separately describes possible catastrophes, so it does not establish negligible overall extinction risk.
- Publisher
- LessWrong; titotal
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
A substantive review of the strongest pre-publication arguments, with an explicit negligible-risk threshold and an assessment of whether their premises justify conclusions about overall extinction risk.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, 𝐩(𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐦)
Some of the specific arguments Yudkowsky and Bostrom have made may well be weak, but there is no solid argument that the number is zero, or even that the risk is infinitesimal.
- Where
- paragraph 39
- Published
- 2023-08-27
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-d28-ecc4a5-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.