“But it is not just s scammers; the larger problem may be naive people who believe that the outputs are legit, or who use it as a shortcut for writing journal articles, missing the errors it produces.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
The larger problem with Deep Research may be naive people who trust its outputs or use it to write journal articles, missing its errors.
Assessment: Can’t be checked Not checked against evidence
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Deep Research, Deep Bullshit, and the potential (model) collapse of science, paragraph 17.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence
- Not checkedboth screens found it cannot be checked
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-deep-research-deep-bullshit-and-the-f6bd30-a1
We recorded 13 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2025-02-03. 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 horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
Nothing beyond the statement itself.
Our interpretation
None added.
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
Both AI providers screened this claim on their own and found that public evidence could not settle it. It is recorded and attributed, not scored.
Why it can’t be checked
Both screens gave the same reason:
- Stated as a chance or a possibility, or at medium or low confidence.
- Evidence
- Not checked
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
Not checked against evidence. Two independent screens, one from each provider, both found this stated as a chance or a possibility, or at medium or low confidence.
Limitations
None recorded.
Evidence (0 items)
No evidence was searched for. Both screens found that public evidence could not settle this claim.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Deep Research, Deep Bullshit, and the potential (model) collapse of science
But it is not just s scammers; the larger problem may be naive people who believe that the outputs are legit, or who use it as a shortcut for writing journal articles, missing the errors it produces.
- Where
- paragraph 17
- Published
- 2025-02-03
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-deep-research-deep-bullshit-and-the-f6bd30-a1: Current. Outcome: Can’t be checked. Not checked against evidence. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-deep-research-deep-bullshit-and-the-f6bd30-a1.