ReadingResearchRadarInvestment framework
Sign in / Sign up
← Back to reading
NewsTopic · Marcus小说阅读赌约2 min read·2026-10-13

Blogger casens: LLMs Can Now Read Novels, Refuting Marcus's 2029 Prediction

Blogger casens tested Claude Opus 4.6 on a newly published novel, "Hollywood, Ending," arguing that current AI can accurately answer questions about plot, character motivation, and conflict. This challenges Gary Marcus's 2022 prediction that AI would still fail to reliably read novels by 2029.

ImportanceMaterialEvidenceE3 inspectableWrite-upQuick

2026-10-13 10:30 GMT+8

Blogger casens published an article on October 13, 2026, claiming that current large language models can clearly read books, refuting earlier predictions by AI critic Gary Marcus. In 2022, Marcus proposed a bet asserting that by 2029, AI would not be able to reliably read a novel and answer questions about plot, characters, conflicts, and motivations. casens argues this prediction has already been disproven.

To verify this claim, casens selected "Hollywood, Ending," a novel by John Green published on September 22, 2026, as the test material. Because the book was released after the training cutoff for most models, it served as a true "unseen text" test. casens converted the novel into pure Markdown format, removing all metadata, and ran Claude Opus 4.6 in a sandboxed environment that blocked all internet traffic except for API connections.

The results showed that Claude Opus 4.6 performed excellently on short-answer questions about the novel, producing no hallucinations and including all intended answers. On long-answer questions, the model's performance was rated by casens as equivalent to at least an "A" grade (95 out of 100) in a high school or university literature class. Despite minor discrepancies in details or differing interpretations of themes, the model successfully identified main characters, motivations, conflicts, and the overall plot without major omissions.

casens also cited other benchmarks to support his view, noting that QuALITY, Winogrande, and DROP—tests designed to measure reading comprehension and common-sense reasoning—were already saturated with high scores by GPT-4 and Claude Opus 3. He argued that the failure cases listed by Marcus, such as understanding pronoun references or inferring implicit information, were limitations of AI from 2019 and earlier, not characteristics of current frontier models.

Sign in / Sign up
ReadingResearchRadarInvestment framework

However, casens acknowledged the limitations of his testing method. First, he acted as the judge of his own tests, which could introduce subjective bias. Second, his definition of "reliably" was based on academic grading standards (95%), whereas Marcus might require a higher accuracy threshold. Additionally, while Opus 4.6 performed well when given the text, in a blind test where it did not know the title or author, it could only guess the general setting but failed to provide specific plot details, indicating that the model relies on direct processing of the provided text rather than memorization.

Sources

  • 原始出处lesswrong.com↗
Topic

Marcus小说阅读赌约

博客作者casens通过测试Claude Opus 4.6阅读2026年出版的新小说《Hollywood, Ending》,指出当前AI已能准确回答情节与人物动机问题,以此反驳Gary Marcus在2022年提出的“AI到2029年仍无法…

4 steps1 piecesUpdated 2026-10-13 13:32

How it got here

  1. 2022-05-31Gary Marcus提出与Elon Musk的赌约,声称AI到2029年无法可靠阅读新小说并回答深层问题。
  2. 2024-12-30Marcus与Miles Brundage达成新赌约,将“阅读新小说”列为2027年前需验证的十项AGI指标之一。
  3. 2026-07-24Marcus公开重申AI阅读小说任务尚未解决,强调幻觉率及必须使用训练数据外的新小说。

What is still unsettled

  • Marcus定义的‘超越字面意思’是否包含对跨章节伏笔(Chekhov's gun)的自动识别?
  • 2027年赌约的裁判团将如何量化‘可靠回答’中的幻觉容忍度?
  • 现有模型在处理超长上下文时,因压缩导致的细节丢失是否构成‘不可靠’?
Read the full topic →
Continue researching →