“Right now, as I have said before, the AI is basically the Wild West; anyone can post any chatbot they want.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Right now AI is basically the Wild West, in that anyone can post any chatbot they want.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Why *is* Bing so reckless?, paragraph 37.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-why-is-bing-so-reckless-6b260f-a2
We recorded 12 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 2023-02-20. 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
- right now (scope, stated by the speaker)
- basically (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- Right now
- basically the Wild West
- anyone can post any chatbot they want
- Congress needs to to find out what happened, and start placing some restrictions
Our interpretation
- The reference to Congress makes the United States the relevant jurisdiction.
- The pharmaceutical comparison and discussion of public releases make the ordinary reading an absence of a general mandatory safety-review or approval requirement before releasing a general-purpose chatbot.
- I do not read 'basically' as claiming immunity from every existing law governing fraud, privacy, disclosures, or specialized activities.
- The target is the legal position on the publication date, 2023-02-20. A legal state can be checked as of that day without substituting a financial reporting period.
Counts as supported if: A historical legal review establishes that, on 2023-02-20, developers could generally release general-purpose chatbots to the U.S. public without mandatory government safety review or approval.
Counts as contradicted if: Binding requirements in force on 2023-02-20 required general-purpose chatbot developers to obtain safety review or approval before public release. Rules limited to particular conduct or specialized uses would qualify the broad wording but would not alone refute this reading.
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
NIST's January 26, 2023 framework states that both the framework and its playbook are voluntary [e1]. California court materials dated August 19, 2019 describe a bot-disclosure requirement [e3]. The June 4, 2025 CRS report says the federal AI laws it discusses established no broad regulatory authority over AI development or use [e2]. These sources do not settle whether general-purpose chatbot releases generally required government safety review or approval across federal and state law on February 20, 2023 [e1][e2][e3].
Limitations
- Voluntary NIST guidance does not establish that no binding release requirements existed elsewhere [e1].
- The California materials address disclosure and do not provide a comprehensive survey of release requirements [e3].
- The CRS assessment concerns a later period and does not establish the complete legal position on February 20, 2023 [e2].
Evidence (3 items)
Context only: National Institute of Standards and Technology,
is voluntary
Why it matters here: NIST's own guidance identifies both the framework and its playbook as voluntary. This supports the direction of Marcus's observation but cannot establish the absence of requirements under other laws.
- Publisher
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Congressional Research Service, reproduced by EveryCRSReport.com,
None established broad regulatory authorities
Why it matters here: The CRS survey describes the limited reach of federal AI legislation. Its later assessment does not by itself establish every federal and state release requirement on 2023-02-20, so it is context only.
- Publisher
- Congressional Research Service, reproduced by EveryCRSReport.com
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Judicial Council of California,
disclose
Why it matters here: These official materials show that bot-related legal duties were recognized before the post. They qualify a literal claim of complete legal freedom, but describe disclosure rather than government safety approval.
- Publisher
- Judicial Council of California
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
A historical review of federal and state law establishing whether general-purpose chatbot releases generally required government safety review or approval on February 20, 2023. It must distinguish operative release requirements from proposals, voluntary guidance, disclosure duties and restrictions on specialized uses.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Why *is* Bing so reckless?
Right now, as I have said before, the AI is basically the Wild West; anyone can post any chatbot they want.
- Where
- paragraph 37
- Published
- 2023-02-20
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-why-is-bing-so-reckless-6b260f-a2: 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.