Gary Marcus

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 65
6/8/2024, 6:39:44 AM
X
In reply to:
teo — e/acc
@phteocos
·
534d
@GaryMarcus but that's where my premise/outlook may differ from yours; if a warning sign did not materialize to an actual problem, we are unable to quantify anything (what the losses are, how it could be fixed, how much it costs to fix, how much it would cost to prevent further issues, etc)
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
534d
@phteocos How much of the $50b would you allocate to foreseeing problems? Or would you just let things run their course, no matter what the cost might be, despite a number of warning signs we have already seen?
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?!

The statement by @phteocos constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive discussion about the importance of foreseeing and mitigating potential problems in the tech industry, particularly in relation to cybercrime, disinformation, and market manipulation. The tone is assertive and the intent is to validate the importance of warnings issued in a Senate hearing.

  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 focused on validating the importance of warnings issued, which can be seen as a responsible action. [+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 emphasizing the importance of warnings and evidence in addressing potential issues. However, it could be more empathetic and compassionate in its tone. [+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 dialogue by responding to a differing viewpoint 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 discussing a significant public issue with integrity. [+1]