An epidemic of weirdly precise AI butt facts
We recorded 15 claims from this post. 7 were checked against evidence. 8 can’t be checked. 1 more is held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (15)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“It’s just fantasy to imagine selling 200 times as many humanoid robots in the nearish term when nobody knows how to build a single safe, reliable, generally useful humanoid right now, at any price.””
What we tested: Humanoid robots will not sell 200 times Roomba's roughly 50 million units in the near term.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“It’s just fantasy to imagine selling 200 times as many humanoid robots in the nearish term when nobody knows how to build a single safe, reliable, generally useful humanoid right now, at any price.””
What we tested: As of October 2024, nobody knows how to build even one safe, reliable, generally useful humanoid robot at any price.
What happened: The accompanying expert discussion says simple tasks still require substantial training and performance remains strongest in controlled, repetitive settings. This supports the ordinary reading that dependable general usefulness had not been established. (IEEE Transmitter, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“The same will be true for humanoid robots, and we aren’t going to see six humanoid robots for every car anytime soon.”
What we tested: Many people will not be able to afford or want humanoid robots, and there will not be six humanoid robots per car anytime soon.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“He then went on to extrapolate that it would be 10,000 times better in 4 years, never considering potential bottlenecks around data, or compute, nor inherent problems with LLMs.”
What we tested: When Musk extrapolated that AI would be 10,000 times better in 4 years, he did not consider potential bottlenecks around data or compute, or inherent problems with LLMs.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“(is OpenAI’s o1 100 times better than GPT4? Certainly not by their own data)”
What we tested: By OpenAI's own data, o1 is certainly not 100 times better than GPT-4.
What happened: On AIME, one of OpenAI's best showcases for o1, the gain is about sixfold (74% vs 12%), far below 100x. (OpenAI, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“My offer to bet him a million dollars on this nonsense stands.”
What we tested: AI will not be able to do anything any human can do within the next one to two years, and Marcus would bet a million dollars on it.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“It’s a made up round number, with no real meaning; pure hype.”
What we tested: Masayoshi Son's figure that artificial superintelligence will be 10,000 times smarter than humans is a made-up round number with no real meaning; pure hype.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“As I put it on X last night, quantitative vibes are still just vibes.”
What we tested: Quantitative vibes, meaning gut feelings expressed as numbers, are still just vibes.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Any serious scientist or engineer knows you can’t possibly predict the future with that kind of precision, especially when there are so many unknowns.”
What we tested: Nobody can predict AI's future power, chip, and capital needs with the precision Son claimed.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“There is just no way that we can predict all this out to 2040 with any certainty.”
What we tested: Even if one believed scaling was infinite and that useful data would not run out, there is just no way to predict all this, including how efficient future models would be in energy and chips, out to 2040 with any certainty.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Nor should they take anything that he or Son said yesterday seriously.”
What we tested: People should not take Musk's or Son's AI predictions from the Riyadh forum seriously.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“In my opinion the audience of investors at the forum was being lied to: they were being assured that everything in the field of AI is under control and well plotted out when in fact science is hard and the field is in its infancy.”
What we tested: In Marcus's opinion, the investor audience at the forum was being lied to: they were being assured that everything in AI is under control and well plotted out, when in fact science is hard and the field is in its infancy.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“(Side bonus: GenAI uses a massive amount of power, to the point of keeping fossil fuels in vogue, and that’s good for oil-rich countries, even if GenAI never becomes reliable.)”
What we tested: Generative AI uses so much power that it keeps fossil fuels in demand, which benefits oil-rich countries whether or not GenAI ever becomes reliable.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“That’s why so many investors working with other people’s money love plausible stories with big numbers.”
What we tested: Because investors working with other people's money get paid large fees even when investments do not pan out, so many of them love plausible stories with big numbers.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“To sweeten it all, they get free press for all these outlandish claims, and that drives up the whole thing.”
What we tested: Those making these outlandish claims get free press for them, and that drives up the whole thing, at least for a while.
Held from this post (1)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The record does not meet the current rules. Our reading, not assessed: Elon Musk has a track record of overoptimistic AI predictions, and his humanoid robot prediction is another one.