“I probably don’t have to tell you, but that’s complete bullshit. And stupid, obviously refuted bullshit at that.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
OpenAI's claim that its voice's resemblance to Scarlett Johansson was coincidental is false.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, The OpenAI board was right, paragraph 3.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-the-openai-board-was-right-30f64e-a1
We recorded 8 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 2024-05-21. 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
- the resemblance was purely a coincidence
- that’s complete bullshit
- obviously refuted
Our interpretation
- In context, the factual assertion is that OpenAI's denial of intentional resemblance was false.
- The ordinary reading concerns deliberately creating or selecting a Johansson-like voice, not merely whether listeners perceived a resemblance.
- The target period covers the May 2024 demonstration and denial through the post date. Earlier casting records are background evidence about that denial.
Counts as supported if: Reliable evidence establishes that resemblance to Johansson was an intended objective of selecting, directing, training, or tuning Sky.
Counts as contradicted if: Reliable evidence establishes an independent voice-selection and production process without an objective of resembling Johansson.
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
Interest in Johansson's voice gives Marcus's inference some basis. The casting account supplies material counterevidence. Neither establishes the complete purpose behind Sky's selection and production. The evidence does not justify calling the coincidence denial conclusively false, but it also does not conclusively establish its truth.
Limitations
- Earlier casting evidence is context outside the denial's target period.
- Party statements and a secondary account cannot substitute for the complete production record.
Evidence (2 items)
Context only: Ars Technica,
She simply used her own voice and got the gig.
Why it matters here: Ars summarizes reporting that the actress received no imitation direction and that casting materials did not request a Johansson clone. This weighs against deliberate imitation, but does not expose every internal selection decision.
- Publisher
- Ars Technica
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: BBC News,
"He said he felt that my voice would be comforting to people."
Why it matters here: Johansson's account supplies a motive for wanting her voice. It does not establish that Sky was selected or altered to imitate her.
- Publisher
- BBC News
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
Contemporaneous selection or tuning records, credible testimony, or an adjudicated finding establishing whether Johansson resemblance was an objective.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, The OpenAI board was right
I probably don’t have to tell you, but that’s complete bullshit. And stupid, obviously refuted bullshit at that.
- Where
- paragraph 3
- Published
- 2024-05-21
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-the-openai-board-was-right-30f64e-a1: 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-the-openai-board-was-right-30f64e-a1.