Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 75
6/8/2024, 6:24:58 AM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
535d
@ebarcuzzi Pretty I sure I replied to his tweet and he didn’t answer that either. We have been on multiple panels together eg at Davos at AI House; if he can’t be bothered to reply it is not my fault.

In my experience people don’t reply when they don’t have something strong to say.
Georgists Against Infill
@ebarcuzzi
·
535d
@GaryMarcus Andrew Ng ain't gonna read your substack.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
535d
@ebarcuzzi Actually, I think Ng’s argument is very weak, as discussed here: https://garymarcus.substack.com/…

I have not here a response to my counterarguments.
Georgists Against Infill
@ebarcuzzi
·
535d
@GaryMarcus You're posting this because you already saw the serious argument for b.
Andrew Ng
@AndrewYNg
·
536d
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 by @ebarcuzzi, 'Aside from that, it’s not just that *andrew* didn’t reply; nobody did. And my newsletter gets read by quite a few people, many prominent,' is part of a broader discussion on AI regulation and public policy. The conversation involves multiple participants discussing the implications of California's proposed law SB-1047 and the responses (or lack thereof) from prominent figures in the AI community. The tone of the statement is somewhat defensive and aims to highlight the perceived lack of engagement from others, including Andrew Ng, in the ongoing debate.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as slightly confrontational, which might not promote a completely respectful dialogue. [-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 of others but does call out specific individuals for not responding, which could be seen as a mild form of public shaming. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on pointing out the lack of response from others.
  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 engages in a form of constructive criticism by pointing out the lack of engagement from others, but it could be more constructive if it focused on the substance of the debate rather than the lack of responses.