Gary Marcus

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 65
6/8/2024, 6:47:24 AM
X
In reply to:
Ethan Mollick
@emollick
·
534d
@GaryMarcus Curious why it is deeply problematic. It is pre-registered and a narrow, but not terrible, operationalization of moral reasoning that is tested rigorously. Fits into a similar set of papers examining how GPT-4 answers moral questions when asked, like this:
Ethan Mollick
@emollick
·
761d
Sounds like a joke setup, but it is an interesting paper: Four pastors, a rabbi, thirteen academics, and 50 MBAs were asked whether they preferred the ethical solutions proposed by the NY Times Ethicist or ones proposed by GPT-4.

...it is basically a tie. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pap…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
534d
@emollick This is a deeply problematic paper. Have you actually read it carefully? It’s rife with methodological problems (per a friend who gave me a summary).
Ethan Mollick
@emollick
·
535d
Alignment, of a sort: this paper conducts what they call a “moral Turing Test,” asking people to compare GPT-4o to humans on ethical questions.

“Here we find that LLMs appear to have a strong aptitude for moral reasoning on par with expert ethicists.” https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxi…

The statement engages in a substantive discussion about the methodology and findings of a research paper, which is a part of public discourse. The tone is critical but aims to seek clarification and further understanding. The statement touches upon principles of constructive criticism, respect for others, and the promotion of understanding.

  1. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by seeking clarification and offering to elaborate further. It shows a willingness to engage in a deeper discussion about the research methodology and findings. [+1]
  2. 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 pointing out perceived issues with the research methodology and expressing a desire to understand it better. It avoids personal attacks and focuses on the content of the research. [+1]