Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 89
3/15/2024, 6:20:12 PM
X
In reply to:
henry 馃寴
@hdevalence
路
572d
@GaryMarcus @patmcguinness my god, if only i had taken more undergrad philosophy classes, i would be able to uncritically accept someone else鈥檚 incorrect problem framing
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
路
572d
@patmcguinness my god you people are bad at thought experiments stated in the most plainly conditional ways.

don鈥檛 know how to help you. maybe take an undergrad philosophy class?
Dr Patrick M. - AI Builder
@patmcguinness
路
572d
@GaryMarcus (a) is imho falsely premised. LLMs have no more GIGO factor than search engines that surface a flat earth blog.
(b) while tenable, LLMs are not nearly as capable of 'fake news' spreading as we humans armed with social media.
No wonder E/Acc 'won'. Let's set premises better.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
路
573d
Conditions under which you would ban LLMs
a. If they completely polluted the information ecosphere and undermined science
b. If they completely polluted the information ecosphere and undermined democracy
c. Other (specify)
d. None, I am e/acc. Damn the consequences.

The statement is part of a conversation on social media that appears to be a debate about the impact of language learning models (LLMs) on the information ecosystem. The tone of the conversation is somewhat sarcastic and critical, with participants challenging each other's understanding of thought experiments and the framing of problems. The intent seems to be to critique and debate the views presented by others in the conversation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement is sarcastic but does not seem to intend harm. It's a part of a critical debate, which can be sharp but not necessarily harmful.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but rather challenges the other's understanding in a critical manner.聽[-1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in dialogue with those in disagreement, although the tone is sarcastic and not entirely constructive.