Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 75
6/8/2024, 6:27:10 AM
X
In reply to:
teo — e/acc
@phteocos
·
535d
@GaryMarcus i am pointing out a flaw that precedes your question/poll

the energy spent by usa trying to "foresee" problems could have been spent in pushing tecnology forward to speeds where the advantages produced would minimize/override possible issues
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
535d
@phteocos So the U.S. public should pay for harms caused by unreliable software made by U.S. AI companies that by hypothesis could have been foreseen because … China?!
teo — e/acc
@phteocos
·
535d
@GaryMarcus china goes all in in biotech (crispr)
china goes all in in manufacturing, perfectly ignoring "intellectual property" (oxymoron)
china is going all in in ai

who is paying for all that if any of that causes "catastrophic harm"?

usa has made its own brakes, hope it's not too late
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
535d
if AI causes catastrophic harm that could reasonably have been foreseen, who should pay for the damages?

The statement by @phteocos constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive discussion about the responsibilities of the tech industry in foreseeing and mitigating potential problems, which is a public issue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but expresses frustration with the tech industry's priorities.
  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.
  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; it is more critical in nature. [-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 engages in constructive criticism of the tech industry but does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to call for better practices in the tech industry, which can be seen as an attempt to better society. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech and uses the platform to responsibly critique industry practices. [+1]