Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
5/20/2024, 9:02:49 PM
X
In reply to:
Terence Plizga | terenceplizga@bsky.social
@TerencePlizga
·
618d
@jonjskin @SquawkStreet @GaryMarcus @SaraEisen @carlquintanilla Why “should” companies be able to reduce AI hallucination? They don’t even understand what’s causing it.
Jon Skinner
@jonjskin
·
618d
@TerencePlizga @SquawkStreet @GaryMarcus @SaraEisen @carlquintanilla True... I am not sure that the AI technology is going to ever be put into like nuclear defense systems, surgical procedures or any potential life threatening processes. And they should be able to limit the hallucination issues as the tech matures. Still can have massive positives
Terence Plizga | terenceplizga@bsky.social
@TerencePlizga
·
618d
@jonjskin @SquawkStreet @GaryMarcus @SaraEisen @carlquintanilla No, Marcus’ biggest complaint is with reliability. LLMs generate outputs that are flat-out wrong with a disturbing frequency. And people are far too willing to turn over their decision-making and critical thinking to these things.
Jon Skinner
@jonjskin
·
618d
@SquawkStreet @GaryMarcus @SaraEisen @carlquintanilla Interesting take...not sure I agree....His biggest complaint is against misinformation use...but that is happening extensively already even without AI. Don't think the WeWork analogy is accurate...but may not be the invention of the light bulb analogy either.
Squawk on the Street
@SquawkStreet
·
618d
"OpenAI might turn out to be the WeWork of AI," NYU's @GaryMarcus tells @SaraEisen and @CarlQuintanilla.

He breaks down why he thinks 2024 will be AI's year of disillusionment.

The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive discussion about AI technology, specifically addressing the issue of AI hallucinations and their implications. The tone of the statement is dismissive and somewhat derogatory, as it calls others 'dumber than I thought' for not understanding the cause of AI hallucinations. The intent appears to be to criticize the perceived lack of understanding among the mentioned individuals, but it does so in a manner that could be considered disrespectful.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement violates the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions by using derogatory language ('dumber than I thought'). [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement violates the principle of respecting the privacy and dignity of others by publicly calling out individuals and implying they are not intelligent. [-2]
  3. 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 violates the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue by resorting to personal attacks rather than focusing on the issue at hand. [-2]