“More broadly, at an absolute minimum governments need to establish an approval process for any AI that deployed at large scale, showing that the benefits outweigh the risks, and to mandate post-release auditing - by independent outsiders - of any large-scale deployments.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
At an absolute minimum, governments need to establish an approval process for any AI deployed at large scale that shows the benefits outweigh the risks, and need to mandate post-release auditing of any large-scale deployment by independent outsiders.
Assessment: Can’t be checked Not checked against evidence
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Two models of AI oversight - and how things could go deeply wrong, paragraph 23.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence
- Not checkedboth screens found it cannot be checked
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-two-models-of-ai-oversight-and-how-1bed3f-a1
We recorded 18 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
- Recommendation or value judgment
- 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
- at an absolute minimum (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
- any AI deployed at large scale (scope, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- at an absolute minimum
- any AI deployed at large scale
Our interpretation
None added.
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
Both AI providers screened this claim on their own and found that public evidence could not settle it. It is recorded and attributed, not scored.
Why it can’t be checked
Both screens gave the same reason:
- A recommendation or a value judgment.
- Evidence
- Not checked
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
Not checked against evidence. Two independent screens, one from each provider, both found this a recommendation or a value judgment.
Limitations
None recorded.
Evidence (0 items)
No evidence was searched for. Both screens found that public evidence could not settle this claim.
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
More broadly, at an absolute minimum governments need to establish an approval process for any AI that deployed at large scale, showing that the benefits outweigh the risks, and to mandate post-release auditing - by independent outsiders - of any large-scale deployments.
- Where
- paragraph 23
- Published
- 2023-06-08
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-two-models-of-ai-oversight-and-how-1bed3f-a1: Current. Outcome: Can’t be checked. Not checked against evidence. 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-1bed3f-a1.