“And you know what, OpenAI knows this argument is bullshit; they know that licensing is a possibility, because they have been running around working on licensing deals.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
OpenAI knows licensing is feasible because it has been pursuing licensing deals, making its argument disingenuous.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, The desperate race to save Generative AI, paragraph 12.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-the-desperate-race-to-save-generative-b17ec6-a3
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 2024-01-08. 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)
From the speaker
- they know that licensing is a possibility
- they have been running around working on licensing deals
- OpenAI knows this argument is bullshit
Our interpretation
- The checkable factual core is that OpenAI had pursued or signed content-licensing agreements before the post, demonstrating institutional awareness that licensing was possible.
- Have been describes activity preceding publication, with no stated starting date. The target period therefore ends on 2024-01-08 and has an unspecified beginning.
- The accusation of knowing dishonesty goes beyond the observable existence of deals and is not established merely by verifying them.
- This is a claim about the existence of licensing arrangements, not their price, profitability, or accounting treatment.
Counts as supported if: Reliable pre-post records show OpenAI pursuing or signing content-licensing agreements.
Counts as contradicted if: Reliable records establish that the alleged licensing activity did not occur. A lack of public announcements alone would not suffice.
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
AP announced on July 13, 2023 that OpenAI was licensing part of its text archive [e7]. OpenAI announced a partnership on December 13, 2023 that included using Axel Springer content for model training [e8]. These agreements support the factual claim that OpenAI had pursued licensing before January 8, 2024 and knew it was possible for selected content [e7, e8]. The supported assessment covers that factual claim only; the agreements do not establish that OpenAI knowingly made a false argument [e7, e8].
Limitations
- The records do not establish OpenAI's private beliefs about its argument or an intent to deceive [e7, e8].
- The agreements do not establish the cost or feasibility of licensing an entire training corpus [e7, e8].
Evidence (2 items)
Supports the claim: The Associated Press,
OpenAI licensing part
Why it matters here: AP directly confirms an actual licensing arrangement before Marcus’s post. Entering the agreement demonstrates institutional awareness of licensing as an available option.
- Publisher
- The Associated Press
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: OpenAI,
training
Why it matters here: The announcement confirms another negotiated content partnership before the post, expressly including model training. It corroborates that licensing activity was not merely hypothetical.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, The desperate race to save Generative AI
And you know what, OpenAI knows this argument is bullshit; they know that licensing is a possibility, because they have been running around working on licensing deals.
- Where
- paragraph 12
- Published
- 2024-01-08
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-the-desperate-race-to-save-generative-b17ec6-a3: 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-the-desperate-race-to-save-generative-b17ec6-a3.
HeldBy this site
The final-text check failed: proposition_faithful.
About assessment marcus-the-desperate-race-to-save-generative-b17ec6-a2, which was not published.