Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83

The statement criticizes the capabilities of voice assistants and large language models (LLMs), using a metaphor ('like putting lipstick on a pig') to suggest that enhancing the interface (voice) does not improve the underlying functionality, which the speaker considers inadequate. The statement expresses skepticism about the practical utility of LLMs in tasks requiring trust and logistical planning, reflecting a broader debate about the limitations and potential of AI technologies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm but uses harsh language to express criticism, which could be seen as slightly negative. [-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 privacy and dignity as it does not target any individuals but critiques technology.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks a tone of empathy and understanding towards advancements in AI, focusing solely on current limitations. [-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 criticism is not constructive as it dismisses the technology entirely rather than suggesting areas for improvement or acknowledging any potential. [-2]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    There is no indication of acknowledging broader perspectives or corrections of any previous statements.
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to critique but does not necessarily guide towards betterment or constructive discussion in society about AI. [-1]
  7. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech but could be more responsible by fostering a more balanced or constructive critique. [-1]