Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
5/28/2024, 6:04:22 PM
X
In reply to:
MetaCritic Capital
@MetacriticCap
·
623d
@GaryMarcus Kevin Scott is on record saying his confidence on scaling laws are based on evidence. He just can't share industry secrets with the public
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
623d
Any scientist hearing this should think, immediately, “well, that’s an empirical conjecture. and we don’t have any data yet to show that it’s true.”

Any business person should ask, “even if it were true, how expensive would it be to train and operate? what would margins be…
andrew arruda 🎸
@AndrewArruda
·
641d
"we can say right now, with a high degree of scientific certainty, gpt 5 is going to be a lot smarter than gpt 4. gpt 6 is going to be a lot smarter than gpt 5. and we are not near the top of this curve...and i think the gravity of that statement is still underrated."

The statement in question is a reply within a broader conversation about the future of AI and the scaling laws of GPT models. This conversation involves public figures and addresses significant public issues related to technology, scientific conjecture, and business implications. Therefore, it constitutes public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the tone of the bet challenge could be seen as confrontational rather than constructive.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but the challenge could be perceived as undermining the dignity of the person it is directed at. [-1]
  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 introduces a competitive and somewhat dismissive tone. [-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 statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. Instead, it introduces a personal challenge (the bet) which could be seen as a form of personal attack or ad hominem argument. [-2]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement does not violate free speech principles, but it does not use the platform responsibly to further the discussion constructively.