Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
6/6/2024, 5:42:55 PM
X
In reply to:
opn 🏳️‍🌈🇫🇷🇺🇦🇵🇸💉
@opnfm
·
610d
@GaryMarcus @elonmusk Honestly I read this as putting all the value onto a billionaire ideas when discarding who really made the efforts. And bringing le cun’s research in that praise was so out of topic
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
610d
This is such a strange place. Usually I get shit for attacking @ElonMusk; today I get shit for praising him.

Let it be noted that Elon took a shot at me on Saturday (to which I responded, negatively), and yet here I am still defending him where he is in the right.

I call’em…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
610d
@james_mtc @elonmusk @ylecun That doesn’t seem fair to me. Gwynne Shotwell surely gets a *ton* of credit, as do many individual engineers, but no Elon, no SpaceX, no reusable Starship.

I give Elon a hard time on many things, but also give credit where credit is due.

The statement engages in a public discourse about the recognition of contributions in the context of SpaceX's achievements. The tone is somewhat sarcastic, indicated by the use of '🙄', and it addresses the ongoing debate about the attribution of credit between Elon Musk and the engineers and researchers involved.

  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 sarcastic tone could be seen as dismissive, which might not promote a constructive dialogue. Minor violation. [-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 the privacy and dignity of others, as it does not engage in personal attacks or reveal private information. Adheres. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The sarcastic tone does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It could be more constructive in addressing the debate. Minor violation. [-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 personal attacks but could be more constructive in its criticism. It does not foster a productive dialogue. Minor violation. [-1]