“His company did however recently support state law in Illinois that “would shield AI labs from liability in cases where AI models are used to cause serious societal harms, such as death or serious injury of 100 or more people or at least $1 billion in property damage”– pretty much the opposite of what he said to Senator Durbin in his deceitful, lie-filled testimony.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
OpenAI recently supported an Illinois state law that would shield AI labs from liability in cases where AI models are used to cause serious societal harms, which Marcus calls pretty much the opposite of what Altman told Senator Durbin in his 2023 testimony.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Maybe Section 230 doesn’t shield AI companies from liability, after all, paragraph 8.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-maybe-section-230-doesnt-shield-ai-5f587b-a1
We recorded 6 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 2026-06-11. 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)
Conditions
- pretty much the opposite (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- His company
- recently support state law in Illinois
- would shield AI labs from liability
- death or serious injury of 100 or more people
- at least $1 billion in property damage
- pretty much the opposite
Our interpretation
- The checkable core is OpenAI’s support for an Illinois proposal containing the described liability protection.
- Because the sentence says “would,” read “state law” as proposed legislation rather than a claim that it was enacted.
- Read “recently” as the current legislative year through publication.
- The comparison with testimony is an evaluative characterization. Support for a conditional liability shield alone cannot establish knowingly false testimony.
- The dollar amount is a statutory harm threshold, not a claim about OpenAI’s finances.
Counts as supported if: Records establish that OpenAI supported an Illinois bill containing conditional protection from liability for the specified catastrophic harms.
Counts as contradicted if: Reliable records establish that the attributed support did not occur, or that the supported proposal lacked the described protection.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Supported
The dated evidence matches what the claim committed to, under the criteria frozen before grading.
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 factual core holds: OpenAI backed an Illinois proposal containing the described conditional liability shield. The assessment does not endorse the accusation of lying. OpenAI disavowed the shield before Marcus published, while acknowledging its earlier support for the bill. Altman’s 2023 comments also left the allocation of liability open. Those qualifications materially weaken the rhetorical comparison without making the earlier support disappear.
Limitations
- This outcome applies to the legislative-support proposition, not the allegation of deceit.
- The shield was conditional and covered defined catastrophic harms.
- Primary Illinois records were inaccessible, so attributed reporting supplies the legislative facts.
Evidence (4 items)
Supports the claim: CBS Chicago,
support that proposal.
Why it matters here: Confirms support.
- Publisher
- CBS Chicago
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: WIRED,
OpenAI’s legislative strategy.
Why it matters here: The article reports the stated 100-person and $1 billion thresholds. Protection required published safety documentation and excluded intentional or reckless causation; covered harms involved weapons or specified autonomous criminal conduct. Reporting substitutes for inaccessible legislative records.
- Publisher
- WIRED
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Transformer,
do not support
Why it matters here: Before Marcus’s post, OpenAI expressly disavowed the shield and backed a different bill. This qualifies the implied continuing policy position but does not erase its earlier support for SB3444.
- Publisher
- Transformer
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
we need a new framework.
Why it matters here: Altman called for a new framework and discussed responsibility shared among developers, intermediaries, and users. This does not commit him to unlimited liability; it is historical comparison material outside the target period.
- Publisher
- United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Maybe Section 230 doesn’t shield AI companies from liability, after all
His company did however recently support state law in Illinois that “would shield AI labs from liability in cases where AI models are used to cause serious societal harms, such as death or serious injury of 100 or more people or at least $1 billion in property damage”– pretty much the opposite of what he said to Senator Durbin in his deceitful, lie-filled testimony.
- Where
- paragraph 8
- Published
- 2026-06-11
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-maybe-section-230-doesnt-shield-ai-5f587b-a1: Current. Outcome: Supported. 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.
About assessment marcus-maybe-section-230-doesnt-shield-ai-5f587b-a1.