Claim · 2018-01-02 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Marcus's paper of January 2018 sets out ten concerns about deep learning, states that it may be approaching a wall, and argues that it must be supplemented by other techniques if artificial general intelligence is to be reached.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal → articulates → Capabilities will plateau

Where it appears

Arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI →

Claim and evidence

Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisalarticulates ↓Capabilities will plateau

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2018-01-02 · publication Records dated 2018 →
Role: Earliest located
Register (kind of text): Nonfiction

Scope and limitsThe paper argues that deep learning alone is insufficient for general intelligence; it does not address catastrophic risk. Yudkowsky's texts on the overlapping dataset concept Y13 contest that AGI is decades away and are linked.

The evidence 02

primary sourceSupports the claim

Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal

arXiv:1801.00631 · 2018-01-02

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“I present ten concerns for deep learning, and suggest that deep learning must be supplemented by other techniques if we are to reach artificial general intelligence.”

Location in source PDF p. 1, Abstract

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Gary Marcus
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 0f5e52be95f86862bac462fc358a3843180e141d38cb384f9a652be4bf447193). arXiv v1, 2 Jan 2018. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31, with the same bytes.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Gary Marcus, “Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal”, 2018-01-02.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (26 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-31, item 45) answered the record’s question blind and agreed with its stance. No human editorial review.

primary sourceSupports the claim

Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal

arXiv:1801.00631 · 2018-01-02

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“Yet deep learning may well be approaching a wall”

Location in source PDF p. 3, Section 1

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Gary Marcus
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 0f5e52be95f86862bac462fc358a3843180e141d38cb384f9a652be4bf447193). arXiv v1, 2 Jan 2018. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31, with the same bytes.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Gary Marcus, “Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal”, 2018-01-02.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (9 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-31, item 45) answered the record’s question blind and agreed with its stance. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor. An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. A passage of the document meets the proposition’s criterion. The record documents what the text states, in its register (fiction and satire are labelled); it is not evidence that the proposition is true and implies no influence on or from another text.

Date. Date of the arXiv v1 submission.

Record ID rd-r13-marcus-2018-critical-appraisal