Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47

Score 89

@DeryaTR_ and no we haven’t done proper studies yet but there is a lot of data emerging now fast (do a google scholar search like the one in my substack) and it’s insane to think there will no consequence. every paper that has obvious and irrelevant LLM dreck left over is under suspicion;…

3/15/2024, 7:28:23 PM

In reply to:

Derya Unutmaz, MD

@DeryaTR_

571d

@GaryMarcus Where is the data that shows this slows down science? In scientific terms, not by cherry-picking anecdotal evidence of a few bad examples & making generalizations.
This is not the scientific method.

In contast, technological acceleration has always helped to advance science.

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

571d

E/Accs, Do you understand that if the apparatus of science grinds down because the stuff you advocated backfires, you will actually have 𝘴𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 science?

The statement is part of a conversation about the impact of certain practices on the progress of science. The tone is cautionary and critical, aiming to raise awareness about the potential negative consequences of not scrutinizing emerging data properly. The intent is to encourage proper scientific methods and skepticism towards unverified data.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement aims to prevent harm by advocating for careful analysis of scientific data, aligning with the principle of doing no harm with words and actions. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by encouraging a thorough search and review of data, which fosters empathy for the scientific process and its integrity. [+1]
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 constructive criticism by challenging the notion that technological acceleration always benefits science without proper evidence. [+1]