Gary Marcus

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 65
6/8/2024, 6:33:33 AM
X
In reply to:
teo — e/acc
@phteocos
·
534d
@GaryMarcus 1. what kind of problems you consider important enough?
2. if we do not know what a problem is, why are you certain that it would require few nickels to deal with it (foresee + mitigate)?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
534d
@phteocos Tech industry spent 50b on chips alone and can’t spend a few nickels trying to foresee and mitigate problems?!
teo — e/acc
@phteocos
·
534d
@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
·
534d
@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
·
534d
@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
·
534d
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 allocation of resources to foresee and mitigate potential problems in the tech industry, which is a public issue. The tone is inquisitive and somewhat critical, aiming to challenge the previous statement by questioning the allocation of funds and the responsibility for potential harms.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions. It is a critical question but does not use harmful language. [+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. It does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by asking a question that encourages deeper thinking about resource allocation and responsibility. [+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 by questioning the previous statement without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly by engaging in a meaningful discussion about a public issue. [+1]