Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
5/19/2024, 4:29:24 PM
X
In reply to:
Bryan Wade
@stale2000
·
615d
@GaryMarcus The example that you are giving of why AI should be regulated/stopped/ect is because people are producing too many fictional stories with them?

That seems like a poor excuse to limit individual freedom.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
615d
Accelerationists are completely indifferent to the many negative externalities of AI, both current and future.

So many people in so many areas of life will be affected, and the accelerationists just don’t care.
Craig Laurance Gidney
@ethereallad
·
615d
@GaryMarcus A lot of short fiction markets are being flooded with AI submissions. Writing is a craft and an art.

The statement by @stale2000 and the subsequent reply by @GaryMarcus engage in a discussion about the regulation of AI and its impact on creative fields. The conversation touches on the broader societal implications of AI, making it a part of public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement by @stale2000 does not directly cause harm but questions the rationale behind regulating AI, which can be seen as a constructive critique. The reply by @GaryMarcus provides context and examples, contributing 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.
    Both statements respect the privacy and dignity of others. They focus on the issue at hand rather than attacking individuals personally. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The conversation promotes understanding by providing examples and reasoning behind the need for AI regulation. It encourages empathy for those affected by AI in creative fields. [+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 dialogue remains constructive, with @stale2000 questioning the reasoning and @GaryMarcus providing further examples. There are no personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]