“Since they can’t reliably solve them, I don’t think we should attribute “understanding” to them, at least not in any remotely deep sense of the word understanding.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
We should not attribute deep understanding to generative AI systems because they cannot reliably solve basic problems like family-relationship inference.
Assessment: Can’t be checked Not checked against evidence
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, What was 60 Minutes thinking, in that interview with Geoff Hinton?, paragraph 17.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence
- Not checkedboth screens found it cannot be checked
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-what-was-60-minutes-thinking-in-that-c973b4-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 2023-10-10. 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
- because they cannot reliably solve basic inference problems (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- because they cannot reliably solve basic inference problems
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, What was 60 Minutes thinking, in that interview with Geoff Hinton?
Since they can’t reliably solve them, I don’t think we should attribute “understanding” to them, at least not in any remotely deep sense of the word understanding.
- Where
- paragraph 17
- Published
- 2023-10-10
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-what-was-60-minutes-thinking-in-that-c973b4-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-what-was-60-minutes-thinking-in-that-c973b4-a1.