“We also know, for example, that Bing has defamed people, and it has misread articles as saying the opposite of what they actually say, in service of doing so.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Bing has defamed people, and in doing so has misread articles as saying the opposite of what they actually say.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Two models of AI oversight - and how things could go deeply wrong, paragraph 19.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-two-models-of-ai-oversight-and-how-16523e-a1
We recorded 20 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 2023-06-08. 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
- Bing has defamed people
- misread articles as saying the opposite of what they actually say
- in service of doing so
Our interpretation
- Defamed is read in its ordinary descriptive sense: generated false statements capable of damaging a real person's reputation. It does not imply a court judgment establishing every legal element of defamation.
- The conjunction requires a connected example: a damaging false statement that Bing supported with an article whose actual meaning opposed it.
- The generic plurals do not specify a minimum number of victims or articles; one verified connected incident establishes the asserted failure mode.
- The historical period is the Bing Chat preview's existence through the post, February 7 to June 8, 2023.
Counts as supported if: A documented Bing response makes a false, reputation-damaging statement about a real person and cites an article that actually rejects or corrects that statement.
Counts as contradicted if: The purported incident is shown to concern a different system, an altered output, a true allegation, or an article that actually supports Bing's statement.
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
The Turley incident supports both connected parts. Oremus reported that Bing repeated a false harassment allegation and cited Turley's own rebuttal. Reading that rebuttal confirms that it rejects the accusation. This supports defamation in the ordinary descriptive sense, not a legal judgment.
Limitations
- One connected incident is established; no prevalence or victim count is inferred.
- The evidence relies on firsthand reporting for Bing's output.
- No legal liability or damages finding is asserted.
Evidence (2 items)
Supports the claim: Will Oremus, reporting on Twitter,
Now Bing is *also* claiming Turley was accused of sexually harassing a student on a class trip in 2018.
Why it matters here: The same post identifies Turley's USA Today rebuttal among Bing's sources for the false allegation. It directly connects the reputational falsehood with the reversed source meaning.
- Publisher
- Will Oremus, reporting on Twitter
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: USA Today; Jonathan Turley,
Second, there is no such Washington Post article.
Why it matters here: The actual article rejects the accusation and its supposed source. Its original subject is ChatGPT, so it serves as the comparison text rather than independent evidence of Bing's output.
- Publisher
- USA Today; Jonathan Turley
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Two models of AI oversight - and how things could go deeply wrong
We also know, for example, that Bing has defamed people, and it has misread articles as saying the opposite of what they actually say, in service of doing so.
- Where
- paragraph 19
- Published
- 2023-06-08
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-two-models-of-ai-oversight-and-how-16523e-a1: 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-two-models-of-ai-oversight-and-how-16523e-a1.