“All of the above seem outside the bounds of current AI.”
Our reading:
As of April 2024, all listed tasks (including Pulitzer-caliber books, Oscar-caliber screenplays, Nobel-caliber discoveries) appear outside the bounds of current AI.
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 says the tasks “seem” beyond current AI. Testing whether any April 2024 system could perform any listed task would turn this qualified assessment into a categorical assertion. The surrounding wording preserves the qualification, and no objective standard for scoring it is supplied. The claim therefore cannot fairly receive a factual pass or fail as written.
Caveats
- This decision does not establish whether the listed tasks were within AI capabilities in April 2024.
- No capability evidence search was undertaken after determining that the wording lacks an adjudicable commitment.
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.
Where we had to interpret
- “Current AI” refers to AI capabilities as of April 12, 2024.
- “Seem” expresses a tentative assessment of the listed capabilities. It does not commit Marcus to the categorical assertion that no existing system could perform any listed task.
- The statement supplies no confidence threshold or standard for deciding when a capability reasonably appears beyond AI. Replacing that uncertainty with a categorical capability test would change the claim.
We don’t grade claims like this. We only check the quote and who said it.
What would settle it
A clarified commitment specifying whether any successful demonstration would refute the assessment, together with success criteria for the listed tasks, would permit a separate capability assessment.
We found 15 claims in this post. See them all.
Full record
Source and dates
Marcus on AI, Superhuman AGI is not nigh, paragraph 24.
- 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 2024-04-12.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the posts we read.
: Marcus on AI, Superhuman AGI is not nigh
All of the above seem outside the bounds of current AI.
- Where
- paragraph 24
- Published
- 2024-04-12
- 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.