Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
5/28/2024, 1:48:13 AM
X
In reply to:
Nirvaan Ved
@br_llm_lock
·
626d
@GaryMarcus @yudapearl @ylecun Gary, you are not even qualified to debate with LeCun. Stick to Psychology and Neuroscience. You are not cut for AGI related discussions.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
626d
@yudapearl @ylecun Because LeCun childishly blocked me, I can’t fully participate in this conversation.
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
·
626d
@ylecun The deep leaning system may be observable and deterministic, fine, but not the environment which this system purports to learn. For starters, cause effect relationships are NOT observable in the environment, nor are agents' intentions and trepidations. @GaryMarcus
Yann LeCun
@ylecun
·
626d
@yudapearl It is much, much easier to investigate what goes on in a deep learning system than in a turbojet, whether theoretically or experimentally.
For starters, the entire state is completely observable with full precision and the dynamics are completely deterministic.
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
·
626d
Well put, but in the development of turbojets we had thermodynamical equations for guidance and wind-tunnels for experimentation. Further, their developers were versed in physical theories and miniature models. Can we say the same about "deep learning"? Quite the opposite.…
Yann LeCun
@ylecun
·
627d
AI is not some sort of natural phenomenon that will just emerge and become dangerous.
*WE* design it and *WE* build it.

I can imagine thousands of scenarios where a turbojet goes terribly wrong.
Yet we managed to make turbojets insanely reliable before deploying them widely.…

The statement by @GaryMarcus constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive debate about artificial general intelligence (AGI) and the qualifications of individuals to participate in such discussions. The tone is confrontational and dismissive, and it includes personal attacks.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does harm by ridiculing others and calling someone a fool, which is not constructive. [-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 disrespects the dignity of others by engaging in name-calling and personal attacks. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion; instead, it fosters animosity. [-2]
  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 statement fails to engage in constructive criticism and dialogue, opting instead for personal attacks and ad hominem arguments. [-2]