“They do not think, they do not have knowledge, they are conjuring up their own training data (or reflecting post-training instructions from those developing them or documents instructing them to act a certain way), and any time you try and make them do something more-complicated, they begin to fall apart, and/or become exponentially more-expensive.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
LLMs do not think or have knowledge, and they fall apart or become exponentially more expensive on more complicated tasks.
Assessment: Can’t be checked Not checked against evidence
Where and when Ed Zitron wrote it
Where's Your Ed At, I Will Never Respect A Website, paragraph 67.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence
- Not checkedboth screens found it cannot be checked
- Assessment recorded
- assessment wyea-i-will-never-respect-a-website-69f9a1-a1
We recorded 18 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2026-04-14. 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
- on more complicated tasks (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- on more complicated tasks
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:
- Too vague to test: informed readers would test it in different ways and reach different answers.
- 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 too vague to test: informed readers would test it in different ways and reach different answers.
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.
: Where's Your Ed At, I Will Never Respect A Website
They do not think, they do not have knowledge, they are conjuring up their own training data (or reflecting post-training instructions from those developing them or documents instructing them to act a certain way), and any time you try and make them do something more-complicated, they begin to fall apart, and/or become exponentially more-expensive.
- Where
- paragraph 67
- Published
- 2026-04-14
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment wyea-i-will-never-respect-a-website-69f9a1-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 wyea-i-will-never-respect-a-website-69f9a1-a1.