Gary Marcus

Rank 32 of 47
|
Score -1
4/2/2024, 8:29:16 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
228d
@arthvid @dwarkesh_sp @ylecun We had one once before, 2017, on YouTube, and I would gladly have another but I don’t believe he has the nerve. 🤷‍♂️
Arth Vidyarthi
@arthvid
·
228d
@dwarkesh_sp A conversation between @ylecun and @GaryMarcus would be tremendous.
Dwarkesh Patel
@dwarkesh_sp
·
228d
Good question.

Who is the smartest AI skeptic I could invite?

Who has compelling arguments for why models won’t generalize much further in the near future?
David Pfau
@pfau
·
228d
Do Lex Fridman or Dwarkesh Patel ever have guests on who are AGI skeptics? Someone who's just like "yeah this is all a bubble, AGI is a mirage, the whole field needs a hard reset"? Genuine question, I don't listen to podcasts.

The statement is part of a conversation about having a public discussion or debate on artificial intelligence and its future prospects. The tone seems to be a mix of dismissive and challenging, with the intent to express skepticism about the value of such a debate based on the claim that the other party has adopted the speaker's previously criticized views. The content is focused on the potential redundancy of a debate between two individuals with a history of disagreement on the subject of AI.

  1. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others and does not engage in harassment or hate speech. [+1]
  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, as it dismisses the potential value of a debate. [-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 borders on a personal attack by questioning the nerve of the other party and implying a lack of originality in their current stance, which is not in the spirit of constructive criticism or dialogue. [-1]