Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 75
6/8/2024, 6:15:26 AM
X
In reply to:
Georgists Against Infill
@ebarcuzzi
·
535d
@GaryMarcus You're posting this because you already saw the serious argument for b.
Andrew Ng
@AndrewYNg
·
537d
The effort to protect innovation and open source continues. I believe we’re all better off if anyone can carry out basic AI research and share their innovations. Right now, I’m deeply concerned about California's proposed law SB-1047. It’s a long, complex bill with many parts…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
535d
If there is a serious argument for answer (b),
I would love to hear it.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
535d
if AI causes catastrophic harm that could reasonably have been foreseen, who should pay for the damages?

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing a substantive issue related to AI regulation and policy. The tone is critical but not hostile, aiming to challenge the strength of an argument made by another individual. The statement includes a link to a detailed discussion, suggesting a desire for informed debate.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm; it is a critique of an argument rather than a personal attack. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By providing a link to a detailed discussion, the statement promotes understanding and encourages readers to explore the issue further. [+1]
  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 engages in constructive criticism by focusing on the argument rather than the individual, and it invites further dialogue. [+1]