“We are clearly not there yet, either.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Humans have not merged with AI via brain-computer interfaces to become much smarter, so Kurzweil's singularity has not arrived.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Sorry, Sam and Elon, we have not reached the Singularity, paragraph 58.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-sorry-sam-and-elon-we-have-not-reached-af42f6-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 2026-07-28. 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
- Kurzweil's definition of the singularity (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- humans merge with AI via brain-to-computer interfaces
- much smarter
- We are clearly not there yet
Our interpretation
- The contextual definition is the standard being assessed, not an antecedent whose occurrence must be established.
- The plain reading requires substantial enhancement of human cognitive ability through integration with AI. Restored communication, improved device control, or motor augmentation alone does not establish it.
- Use July 1–28, 2026, for the ongoing state described. There is no regular reporting period for BCI capability.
Counts as supported if: A contemporary assessment of BCI capabilities places substantial AI-mediated cognitive enhancement beyond demonstrated capabilities, with existing demonstrations limited to narrower functions.
Counts as contradicted if: A validated human BCI demonstration establishes substantial cognitive improvement from integration with AI, beyond communication or motor assistance alone.
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
A scientific review published online in July describes cognitive BCIs as an emerging challenge, while distinguishing them from established restoration of movement and communication. This supports the ordinary reading that humans had not merged with AI through BCIs to become substantially smarter. The conclusion is an inference from the contemporary state of the field, not proof that every unpublished experiment lacked cognitive benefits.
Limitations
- Much smarter has no specified threshold.
- The assessment uses the review's accessible abstract.
- Narrow therapeutic or task-specific gains would not necessarily meet the stated singularity definition.
Evidence (1 item)
Supports the claim: Trends in Cognitive Sciences; abstract hosted by PubMed,
fundamentally new challenges.
Why it matters here: The July review distinguishes established movement and communication restoration from the emerging challenge of cognitive BCIs. Its description of cognitive integration as prospective supports the inference that the much stronger merger described in the claim had not been achieved.
- Publisher
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences; abstract hosted by PubMed
- Kind of source
- Peer-reviewed paper
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Sorry, Sam and Elon, we have not reached the Singularity
We are clearly not there yet, either.
- Where
- paragraph 58
- Published
- 2026-07-28
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-sorry-sam-and-elon-we-have-not-reached-af42f6-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-sorry-sam-and-elon-we-have-not-reached-af42f6-a1.