Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 83
4/12/2024, 2:11:07 PM
X
In reply to:
Zar Goertzel 💖∞💞
@QonoVuor
·
657d
@GaryMarcus @pathintegral0 As for safety testing, Gary only says scientists and regulators should be able to know what testing has been done internally. No "control" here. It's something both "open" and "closed" folk should be able to agree on.

The article (I think): https://www.politico.com/news/ma…
Zar Goertzel 💖∞💞
@QonoVuor
·
657d
@GaryMarcus @pathintegral0 To be honest, Rohit, most of the points discussed in the article are very "benign" compared to what some push who are very afraid of "runaway killer AGI".

We urgently need both technical and legal mechanisms to verify authenticity and combat deepfake scams.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
657d
@pathintegral0 why would AI be different from, i dunno, traffic lights, where government intervention is critical for the safety and proliferation of the entire auto industry? etc etc for airplanes and so on. also, would be nice if you engaged in the 7 points i actually made in the referenced…
Rohit
@pathintegral0
·
657d
@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
·
657d
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
·
657d
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 on Twitter that addresses the issue of safety testing and regulation in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) deployment. It suggests a preference for a redeployment assessment of risk versus benefits for large-scale AI deployment. The tone is constructive and the intent is to contribute to the ongoing discussion about AI safety and regulation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to contribute to the discussion without causing harm. [+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 suggesting a balanced approach to AI deployment. [+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 suggesting a method for assessing AI deployment without personal attacks. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to suggest a method that could benefit society by ensuring AI is deployed safely. [+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 responsibly contributing to the public discourse on AI. [+1]