Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 83
4/12/2024, 4:30:38 AM
X
In reply to:
Rohit
@pathintegral0
·
659d
@GaryMarcus First two points are the truth.
Third is unnecessary. US govt or any govt should do nothing more than promoting, helping and watching. Any conflicts will gets solved through the usual discourse. Obviously should take responsibility and Accountability where required.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
659d
Absolutely! There is still hope for building a positive AI future!

But at least three things have to change:
• We need a better, more reliable, more trustworthy technical approach (which will probably require a paradigm shift)
- The big AI companies have to stop ripping off…
matthewputman
@matthewputman
·
659d
You have been a great friend and intellectual innovator in ai @GaryMarcus . We used to work together. I get your skepticism completely. Isn’t there hope in building an abundant future through ai for building better things as we used to think? I still do.

The statement is part of a conversation about the role of government in the development and regulation of AI technology, which is a public issue. The tone is inquisitive and suggests a comparison between AI and other industries where government intervention is deemed necessary. The intent is to challenge the view that government should have a minimal role in AI development and to advocate for a more active government role, similar to its role in traffic regulation and aviation safety. The content addresses the need for safety and proliferation in the AI industry and calls for engagement with previously made points.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions. [+1]
  2. 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 cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by drawing parallels between AI and other industries, fostering a more nuanced view of government intervention. [+1]
  4. 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 inviting further dialogue on the points made, without personal attacks. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to advocate for the betterment of society by suggesting a role for government that could lead to safer AI development. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech by contributing responsibly to the public discourse on AI regulation. [+1]