“There are other ways to break free from the attractors (“let’s think this through step by step” is rumored to be having some success) but what you get by default does often seem to that which has been highly trained.”
Our reading:
There are other ways to break free from the attractors ('let's think this through step by step' is rumored to have some success), but what GenAI systems produce by default often seems to be what has been highly trained.
Assessment: Can’t be checked
What happened
Not graded on evidence
Outcome: Can’t be checked
An opinion, a recommendation, or too vague to test. Listed, not scored.
Evidence up to . Checked .
Why
Marcus describes what outputs seem to do and reports a rumor about prompting. A test of whether default outputs commonly reproduce frequent training patterns would be relevant research, but scoring that stronger proposition would exceed his commitment. The plain-reading exception for firm language does not apply.
Caveats
- This decision does not establish whether training frequency influences outputs or whether alternative prompts help.
Evidence (0 items)
Claims like this aren’t scored, so there is no evidence to show.
How we judged it
- Kind of claim
- Observation
- Deadline
- None given. We don’t add one.
Conditions
- by default (their words)
- often (their words)
- seems (their words)
- step-by-step prompting rumored to have some success (their words)
Where we had to interpret
- The statement offers a tentative impression about default outputs and explicitly labels the step-by-step suggestion as a rumor.
- Scoring a firm empirical tendency would remove the hedge. Scoring step-by-step prompting as effective would turn hearsay into an asserted result.
- The opening assertion about other ways to escape does not supply a sufficiently defined standalone test within this combined claim.
We don’t grade claims like this. We only check the quote and who said it.
What would settle it
A separate, firm statement defining the asserted behavior could be assessed. New evidence alone cannot make this tentative statement a firm claim.
We found 6 claims in this post. See them all.
Full record
Source and dates
Marcus on AI, Further Trouble in Hinton City, paragraph 14 (footnote 1).
- Said
- We read the source
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence up to
- Checked
We read this wording on 2026-10-29. The post may have been edited after 2024-02-08.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the posts we read.
: Marcus on AI, Further Trouble in Hinton City
There are other ways to break free from the attractors (“let’s think this through step by step” is rumored to be having some success) but what you get by default does often seem to that which has been highly trained.
- Published
- 2024-02-08
- We read it
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Versions
- Current: Can’t be checked. Evidence up to 2026-10-28.
What happened to this record
PublishedBy us
Published after both AI reviews and the final check passed.
Held backBy us
A reviewer said our test wasn’t fair to what was actually said.