“Return on investment for corporate end users is also lower than many people must have imagined.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Return on generative AI investment for corporate end users is lower than many people must have imagined.
Assessment: Can’t be checked Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Three years on, ChatGPT still isn't what it was cracked up to be – and it probably never will be, paragraph 13.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-three-years-on-chatgpt-still-isnt-b36452-a1
We recorded 30 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 2025-11-29. 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
- corporate end users (scope, stated by the speaker)
- must have imagined (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- Return on investment for corporate end users
- lower than many people must have imagined
Our interpretation
- This compares realized returns with an unidentified group's imagined expectations.
- Neither the people, their expected returns, their investment horizons, nor the required degree of disappointment is specified.
- Replacing imagined expectations with a particular executive survey would add a substantive commitment the speaker did not make.
- This is an aggregate assertion about expectations, not a financial figure for an identified company.
This claim is not graded on evidence. The record checks that the words are quoted correctly and attributed to the right person, and that the claim is classified correctly.
Current assessment
Not graded on evidence
Outcome: Can’t be checked
The statement is a recommendation, a value judgment, or too open to test. It is recorded, not scored.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
The statement expresses inferred disappointment relative to unspecified expectations. Surveys can measure reported returns, but cannot establish what the unnamed people must have imagined. Choosing a particular survey as the baseline would change the claim.
Limitations
- This does not assess the separate factual claims about MIT or McKinsey.
Evidence (0 items)
No outcome evidence: a claim of this kind is recorded and attributed, not scored.
What would settle it
Identification of the people or survey, their prior expected returns, and the period over which those expectations should be compared with outcomes.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Three years on, ChatGPT still isn't what it was cracked up to be – and it probably never will be
Return on investment for corporate end users is also lower than many people must have imagined.
- Where
- paragraph 13
- Published
- 2025-11-29
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-three-years-on-chatgpt-still-isnt-b36452-a1: Current. Outcome: Can’t be checked. 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-three-years-on-chatgpt-still-isnt-b36452-a1.