“Putting aside the remarkable security concerns, the “Large Action Model” also looks like barely-functioning dogshit.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Setting aside its security concerns, Rabbit's Large Action Model looks like it barely functions.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Ed Zitron wrote it
Where's Your Ed At, Expectations Versus Reality, paragraph 41.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment wyea-expectations-versus-reality-a59892-a1
We recorded 28 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 2024-05-13. 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
- looks like (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- Large Action Model
- looks like
- barely-functioning
Our interpretation
- The ordinary factual reading is that the advertised app-action features were highly unreliable in practical launch-period use, with repeated failures or substantial delays.
- This does not mean that every action failed or that every R1 feature was unusable.
- Use the April 23 launch through the May 13 post, reflecting the launch demo and recent reviews discussed in context.
- No numerical success-rate threshold is supplied, so assess the qualitative claim against firsthand task reports.
Counts as supported if: Contemporaneous firsthand tests repeatedly fail to complete core advertised app actions, or show delays and errors that make them unreliable for ordinary use.
Counts as contradicted if: Representative contemporaneous tests show core advertised app actions completing reliably with practical response times; isolated bugs would not establish barely functioning.
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
Firsthand launch reviews repeatedly encountered failures in advertised food-ordering and ride-booking functions. That supports the ordinary qualitative reading of barely functioning. A successful sandwich order shows that some actions worked, but does not overturn the evidence of serious unreliability. The finding concerns the launch experience, not later versions.
Limitations
- The phrase has no numerical threshold.
- Reviewers tested limited accounts, locations and tasks.
- Evidence dates identify reported performance snapshots; individual test days are not consistently supplied.
- These tests establish user-visible performance, not which internal component caused each failure.
Evidence (3 items)
Supports the claim: The Verge, David Pierce,
So far, Rabbit has gotten me zero rides and zero meals.
Why it matters here: This is the review's cumulative result as of publication: neither ride booking nor food ordering had succeeded. The surrounding passage describes repeated attempts and errors.
- Publisher
- The Verge, David Pierce
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: Tom's Guide, Mark Spoonauer,
I couldn’t add anything to my cart from there either.
Why it matters here: The review's May 1 reporting snapshot describes repeated food-order failures, including a slow response identifying the wrong restaurant followed by another cart failure. The source does not give individual test dates.
- Publisher
- Tom's Guide, Mark Spoonauer
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Engadget, Devindra Hardawar,
able to get me a sandwich.
Why it matters here: The launch review reports a successful food order, limiting any suggestion of total nonfunctionality. Its reporting date supplies the snapshot; the individual test day is unspecified.
- Publisher
- Engadget, Devindra Hardawar
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Where's Your Ed At, Expectations Versus Reality
Putting aside the remarkable security concerns, the “Large Action Model” also looks like barely-functioning dogshit.
- Where
- paragraph 41
- Published
- 2024-05-13
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment wyea-expectations-versus-reality-a59892-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 wyea-expectations-versus-reality-a59892-a1.