Pundit ClaimsAI claims by Gary Marcus and Ed Zitron, with the evidence

Gary Marcus Marcus on AI Published

GPT 4.5 is no GPT-5

We recorded 14 claims from this post. 7 were checked against evidence. 7 can’t be checked. 4 more are held. Read the post at its source.

Claims from this post (14)

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.

  1. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “Actually, at any moment, we will finally get GPT 4.5, which most certainly wouldn’t live up to expectations around GPT-5 — hence its rather tentative name.”

    What we tested: GPT 4.5 will not live up to the expectations that had been set for GPT-5.

    What happened: The release card reports a PersonQA hallucination rate of 0.19 for GPT-4.5. That is an improvement over the comparison models, but hallucinations clearly remain. (OpenAI, )

  2. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “GPT 4.5 is unlikely to revolutionize AI”

    What we tested: GPT 4.5 is unlikely to revolutionize AI.

  3. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “In reality GPT 4.5 is unlikely to meet high expectations, per The Information:”

    What we tested: GPT 4.5 is unlikely to meet high expectations.

  4. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “In “Deep learning is hitting a wall”, I warned that problems with reasoning and hallucination wouldn’t go away simply as a function of scaling, and they haven’t.”

    What we tested: Problems with reasoning and hallucination in deep learning systems have not gone away as a function of scaling.

    What happened: The January launch system card, in its February file version, reports a 14.8% PersonQA hallucination rate for o3-mini. Its comparison models also have nonzero rates, despite improvements. (OpenAI, )

  5. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “All this looks to be true for GPT 4.5 as well.”

    What we tested: GPT 4.5 likely shows mixed results, with reasoning and hallucination problems unresolved and gains in only some domains.

  6. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “The truth is that scaling just isn’t producing the fruit that it once did.”

    What we tested: Scaling is no longer producing the gains it once did.

  7. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “It’s not just OpenAI either; it’s the whole field, as I discussed in my own recent Fortune article:”

    What we tested: Diminishing returns from scaling affect the whole AI field, not just OpenAI.

  8. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “But IMHO people investing their money in Nvidia shouldn’t be looking just at quarterly reports (which might be good, since people continue to buy their gold rush shovels in bulk—for now).”

    What we tested: Nvidia investors should not look only at quarterly reports.

  9. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “Investors should also be looking at the prospects for “solving” AI with pure scaling, which is after all much of the vision Nvidia is selling.”

    What we tested: Investors should weigh the prospects for solving AI through pure scaling, which underpins Nvidia's pitch.

  10. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “And for that matter people should be comparing GenAI revenue (on the order of low tens of billions per year, pre price wars) with GenAI expenditures (order half a trillion dollars to date), and doing the math, especially given the price wars induced by DeepSeek.”

    What we tested: GenAI revenue is on the order of low tens of billions of dollars per year (before the price wars), while GenAI expenditures are on the order of half a trillion dollars to date.

  11. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Right now, the math for profitability doesn’t work, influence on productivity of GenAI has been minimal, and prospects for pure scaling aren’t looking great.”

    What we tested: The math for generative AI profitability currently doesn't work.

  12. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Right now, the math for profitability doesn’t work, influence on productivity of GenAI has been minimal, and prospects for pure scaling aren’t looking great.”

    What we tested: Generative AI's influence on productivity has been minimal.

  13. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “Right now, the math for profitability doesn’t work, influence on productivity of GenAI has been minimal, and prospects for pure scaling aren’t looking great.”

    What we tested: Prospects for pure scaling of AI are not looking great.

  14. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “But minor variations seems to be all that is emerging, despite the enormous investments.”

    What we tested: Despite enormous investments, recent AI releases appear to be only minor variations on earlier ones.

Held from this post (4)

These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.