Gary Marcus bets $1M that AI in 2027 won’t beat Nobel-level scientists
GaryMarcus · x · 2026-07-23
Gary Marcus says he wishes Dario had taken his bet: he publicly offered to wager $1 million that AI in 2027 will not be "smarter than Nobel Prize winners across most fields in science and engineering."
He argues that the current evidence does not support that claim:
- A Stanford study by Chenglei Si reportedly finds that LLM-generated ideas lead to worse projects than human ideas.
- The April LLM-SRBench benchmark suggests LLMs still struggle to infer causal laws.
- Even chess, with its stable and well-defined rules, remains hard for current AI to reason about reliably.
- A recent post by skdh is cited as evidence that LLMs are error-prone when reasoning about physics beyond simple regurgitation.
The post frames the bet as a way to challenge overly optimistic AGI timelines.
More from AGI Musings
- Sycophancy can stop an AI from disproving your conjecture — joshwhiton · 2026-07-23
- Matt Yglesias debates AI’s labor-market impact on a new podcast episode — binarybits · 2026-07-23
- Agentic AI is moving from assistant to systems that can do part of the work — RiciglianoMarceloE · 2026-07-23
- A long post argues AI alignment should maximize human autonomy through truth — GlenBradley · 2026-07-23
- Research explores antibodies that may help protect people from cancer — EricTopol · 2026-07-23
- Allison Duettmann imagines emulated time and many lives beyond one human lifespan — juanbenet · 2026-07-23