Gary Marcus

Rank 31 of 47

Score -2

Reposted by Gary Marcus

Colin Fraser | @colin-fraser.net on bsky

I’m always seeing people on here asking, like, “what does it matter whether AI ‘reasons’ or not? What would it even mean?” like it’s an unanswerable question but the answer is very simple and practical: because it doesn’t reason it fucks up in ways that it wouldn’t if it did

4/25/2024, 4:10:35 AM

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the topic of artificial intelligence (AI) and its capability to 'reason.' The speaker is responding to a common question or skepticism about the importance of AI's reasoning abilities, suggesting that the lack of such abilities leads to practical errors. The tone is somewhat informal and direct, using colloquial language to emphasize the speaker's point.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement uses strong language ('fucks up') which might be seen as harsh but does not inherently cause harm. The intent is to highlight a technical shortfall in AI, not to harm.
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement aims to promote understanding by clarifying why it is important for AI to have reasoning abilities, thus fostering a better comprehension of AI's limitations and capabilities. [+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 a form of dialogue by addressing a common question or skepticism, though it could be seen as dismissive of those who pose the question. It does not engage in personal attacks but could be more constructive in its criticism.