Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
693d
Q: “Gary, why do you think that AI can be dangerous if it’s stupid and unreliable?”

A: One answer: Bad guys don’t need reliable tech:
5/14/2024, 2:38:42 PM
X
In reply to:
Carlos Santana
@DotCSV
·
608d
@GaryMarcus There is a saying in Spanish that goes: "You can't blow and sip at the same time."

At the end of the day, I can use your arguments to dismantle your same own arguments. It's a weird kind of self-play, i guess.
Carlos Santana
@DotCSV
·
608d
@GaryMarcus Yes, I am going to use the arguments from this tweet of yours from 13 hours ago in which you say that AI has entered a period of diminishing returns, which is the opposite of your catastrophic vision from a year ago where you placed us 12 months later in an unrealistic point…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
608d
@DotCSV That was given as a plausible scenario; I still believe that could happen. Do you have some proof or strong argument that it cannot?
Carlos Santana
@DotCSV
·
608d
@GaryMarcus A few days before...

"AutoGPT will manipulate market [...] -> nuclear war"
Carlos Santana
@DotCSV
·
608d
@GaryMarcus Usually, your opinions shift from 'AI capabilities are so overhyped, the bubble will pop soon' to 'Let me overhype this tech in the hands of bad actors'.

An example: AutoGPT

"I remember when AutoGPT was still hyped last week"
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
608d
@DotCSV If the translation is correct, this is a serious misrepresentation both of my actual claims, and of the pause letter.

The statement in question is part of a public discourse on the implications and development of AI technologies, specifically addressing concerns about the potential harms caused by AI systems. The tone of the statement is confrontational and accusatory, focusing on perceived misrepresentations and lack of substance in the opposing argument.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement potentially does harm by using harsh language ('stupid systems', 'strawmanning') which could escalate tensions rather than foster a constructive dialogue. [-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 in a minimal sense, as it does not attack personal attributes but focuses on the argumentative conduct of the interlocutor.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks a tone that promotes understanding, empathy, or compassion, instead opting for a confrontational approach that may hinder constructive discourse. [-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.
    While the statement attempts to engage in dialogue, the approach taken (accusatory and dismissive) is not conducive to constructive criticism or effective dialogue. [-1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement does not demonstrate an acknowledgment or correction of mistakes; rather, it focuses on criticizing the opposing viewpoint.