Gary Marcus said it:
“If there exist AI systems that can perform 8 of the 10 tasks below by the end of 2027, as determined by our panel of judges, Gary will donate $2,000 to a charity of Miles’ choice; if AI can do fewer than 8, Miles will donate $20,000 to a charity of Gary’s choice.”
We find out by Dec 31, 2027. 465 days to go · on the record 34 days, before anyone knew the answer
MET if The panel of judges mutually agreed by Gary Marcus and Miles Brundage determines that AI systems existed by the end of 2027 that can perform at least 8 of the 10 tasks listed in the 30 December 2024 post (movie comprehension, novel comprehension, biographies/obituaries, video-game mastery, legal briefs, 10,000+ line bug-free code, Pulitzer-caliber books, Oscar-caliber screenplays, Nobel-caliber discoveries, formalization of math proofs), where tasks need not have been actually attempted commercially but must be technically feasible with modest per-task cost (roughly $1 million of compute plus 10 person-weeks), and where the tasks are not performed by 10 completely separate bespoke systems. at any point, before 2027-12-31 23:59 (UTC).
Settles by documented review of public evidence against these locked criteria; the reviewer is named and the reasoning published.
The original wording did not settle the timing on its own. The reading above was chosen at registration and locked with the claim — it was not decided after the fact.
Settled by the determination of the mutually agreed panel of judges described in the post: if the panel finds that AI systems capable of performing at least 8 of the 10 listed tasks existed (or were technically feasible at ~$1M compute + 10 person-weeks per task) by 31 December 2027, the claim resolves true; if the panel finds fewer than 8 tasks met, it resolves false. Judges may take months after the deadline to render the decision.
History — append-only
Proof
Disputes
No disputes have been filed. If something here is wrong — a misquote, a wrong date, a misattributed source — say so and it gets answered on the record. How disputes work.
Related
Quote verified against the source
Added by Thonest from a public source. The person quoted did not submit, approve, or endorse this record; the wording is verified against the source itself.
Reactions are about the record being worth keeping — never about whether the person was right. They are never counted for or against anyone, and never used to rank anything.
Discussion
Loading…
Joint Substack post by Gary Marcus and Miles Brundage announcing a 10:1 wager on the state of AI capabilities at the end of 2027. Terms of a public wager agreed between Gary Marcus and Miles Brundage, published on Marcus on AI. The record is held against Marcus, whose post states the terms; Brundage is the counterparty.
✓ The anchored proof cannot be rewritten, and the published record is append-only by default. Everything that happened afterward is in the history above — corrections are appended, never silently edited in.
The check runs in your browser and reads the anchored root straight from a public Base node — not from Thonest. How this works.