“And (as far as I know) not one of the companies that previously stood up and said they support AI regulation is standing up for this one, or offering anything substantive in its place.”
Our reading:
As far as Marcus knows, none of the AI companies that said they support AI regulation is supporting SB-1047 or offering a substantive alternative.
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 explicitly qualified the statement with 'as far as I know.' Testing whether any company publicly supported the bill or proposed an alternative would remove that qualification. The context also limits which companies he meant. Under the instruction for hedged claims, this statement is not adjudicable as written. This does not establish that his account of company positions was correct.
Caveats
- No factual verdict is offered on the companies' positions.
- The search was limited and produced no admissible evidence of Marcus's awareness.
- The meaning of a substantive substitute remains partly judgmental.
Evidence (0 items)
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.
Conditions
- as far as I know (their words)
Where we had to interpret
- Preserve the explicit limit to Marcus's knowledge at publication. Do not replace it with an unconditional assertion about the public record.
- Read the company group through the supplied context: OpenAI, Microsoft, Alphabet, and the companies referenced through the Biden commitments or Senate appearances. Do not extend it to any startup that published a policy essay.
- The statement concerns positions current on June 7, 2024. Public statements could establish company positions, but their publication alone would not establish Marcus's awareness.
- An alternative must address the regulatory purpose of SB-1047 to count as being offered 'in its place.' Marcus supplies no precise threshold for 'substantive.'
We don’t grade claims like this. We only check the quote and who said it.
What would settle it
Authenticated contemporaneous evidence that Marcus knew of a qualifying company's support or substantive substitute could permit reconsideration. Grading company positions alone would require a separately stated, unqualified claim.
We found 10 claims in this post. See them all.
Full record
Source and dates
Marcus on AI, The misguided backlash against California’s SB-1047, paragraph 6.
- 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 2024-06-07.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the posts we read.
: Marcus on AI, The misguided backlash against California’s SB-1047
And (as far as I know) not one of the companies that previously stood up and said they support AI regulation is standing up for this one, or offering anything substantive in its place.
- Where
- paragraph 6
- Published
- 2024-06-07
- 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.