“Essentially NONE of the comparisons we have heard between humans and machines have looked at cars in which humans were not playing some role in the driving, either in the car or remotely.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Essentially none of the human-versus-machine comparisons we have heard looked at cars in which humans played no role in the driving, either in the car or remotely.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Rethinking “driverless cars”, paragraph 12.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-rethinking-driverless-cars-6d0304-a2
We recorded 13 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-29. The source may have been edited after 2023-11-05. 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
- comparisons we have heard (scope, stated by the speaker)
- essentially (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- Essentially NONE
- comparisons we have heard
- humans were not playing some role
- either in the car or remotely
Our interpretation
- 'Comparisons we have heard' means publicly circulated human-versus-automated-driving safety comparisons available by the post date, rather than an unknowable personal reading history.
- 'Some role' includes operational remote guidance, not merely direct control of steering or braking. It excludes designing the software and unrelated passenger support.
- 'Essentially none' allows isolated exceptions; one comparison does not automatically settle the claim.
- The target is the accumulated comparison literature through November 5, 2023, with no specified starting date.
Counts as supported if: A sufficiently comprehensive review shows that virtually all relevant comparisons included onboard human intervention or remote operational guidance, without isolating operation free of both.
Counts as contradicted if: A meaningful body of relevant comparisons explicitly excludes or separately measures both onboard intervention and remote operational guidance.
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
Waymo's October 2020 safety paper disclosed remote assistance for its automated driving system [e1]. Its September 6, 2023 Swiss Re announcement described a comparison covering over 3.8 million miles without an onboard human driver, but did not establish that remote operational guidance was excluded [e2]. Waymo's March 8, 2021 study simulated an automated driver in reconstructed fatal crashes, providing a possible exception if simulations count [e3]. These items do not establish the full population of relevant comparisons or how often they excluded both onboard intervention and remote guidance, leaving 'essentially none' unresolved [e1, e2, e3].
Limitations
- The packet is not a comprehensive inventory of comparisons available by November 5, 2023.
- The road-service comparison does not quantify or exclude remote guidance.
- The result depends partly on whether simulated comparisons count; one possible exception cannot settle a claim allowing isolated exceptions.
Evidence (3 items)
Context only: Waymo researchers, arXiv,
provide remote assistance
Why it matters here: Waymo disclosed remote contextual guidance before the post while distinguishing it from teleoperation. This makes the absence of an onboard driver insufficient to establish the absence of every human operational contribution.
- Publisher
- Waymo researchers, arXiv
- Kind of source
- Preprint, not peer reviewed
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Waymo,
liability insurance claims data
Why it matters here: The announcement describes a substantial comparison without onboard human drivers. Neither this announcement nor the original study establishes that the comparison excluded remote operational guidance.
- Publisher
- Waymo
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Waymo,
each scenario.
Why it matters here: The study replaced human crash participants with a simulated automated driver. This challenges an unrestricted claim about all comparisons, but is not an observed road-service dataset explicitly excluding remote assistance.
- Publisher
- Waymo
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
A sufficiently comprehensive inventory of comparisons available by November 5, 2023, with study-level evidence about onboard intervention and remote operational guidance. It must establish whether virtually all included human involvement or a meaningful body explicitly excluded or separately measured both forms, with simulation studies identified.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Rethinking “driverless cars”
Essentially NONE of the comparisons we have heard between humans and machines have looked at cars in which humans were not playing some role in the driving, either in the car or remotely.
- Where
- paragraph 12
- Published
- 2023-11-05
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-rethinking-driverless-cars-6d0304-a2: 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.
About assessment marcus-rethinking-driverless-cars-6d0304-a2.