“As far I can tell this graph doesn’t plot real data, nor clarify that it is merely hypothetical.”
Our reading:
As far as he can tell, the capability-progress graph posted by an OpenAI employee does not plot real data and does not make clear that it is merely hypothetical.
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 explicitly limits the statement with “As far I can tell”. Scoring it as a categorical assertion that the graph contains no real data and no disclosure would remove that qualification. The original graph could settle questions about its construction and presentation, but those findings would not alone settle his stated assessment of what he could discern. Under the rule for hedged claims, this item should not receive a supported or contradicted grade.
Caveats
- This decision does not establish whether the graph used real measurements or disclosed hypothetical content.
- The speaker’s post is used only to establish wording, not as evidence that his criticism was correct.
Evidence (1 item)
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
- as far as he can tell (their words)
Where we had to interpret
- The opening qualification applies to both statements about the graph. Marcus reports his tentative assessment, limited to what he could discern.
- Testing whether the graph objectively used measurements or disclosed hypothetical content would test a stronger proposition than the qualified statement submitted.
- The plain-reading provision for firm claims does not justify removing this hedge.
We don’t grade claims like this. We only check the quote and who said it.
What would settle it
A separately specified, unqualified claim about the graph could be assessed against the original post, its disclosures, and documented measurements. That would be a different claim.
We found 12 claims in this post. See them all.
Full record
Source and dates
Marcus on AI, Is OpenAI more like WeWork or Theranos?, paragraph 12.
- Said
- We read the source
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence up to
- Checked
We read this wording on 2026-10-28. The post may have been edited after 2024-10-20.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the posts we read.
: Marcus on AI, Is OpenAI more like WeWork or Theranos?
As far I can tell this graph doesn’t plot real data, nor clarify that it is merely hypothetical.
- Where
- paragraph 12
- Published
- 2024-10-20
- 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.