Gary Marcus

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 65
6/8/2024, 1:19:29 PM
X
In reply to:
Thomas G. Dietterich
@tdietterich
·
534d
@GaryMarcus @commonsensedoge They are already living with the EU AI act in Europe. Why not duplicate it in California and the US? The CA law doesn’t seem well-designed. Opposing a bad law doesn’t mean opposing all laws
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
534d
@tdietterich @commonsensedoge Not of the companies that said it wants regulation has supported CA SB-1047, afaik.

Not one of the major opponents has offered any sort of alternative, so far as I know.

If they don’t like 1047, and they are sincere in wanting regulation, what is their alternative?
Thomas G. Dietterich
@tdietterich
·
534d
@commonsensedoge @GaryMarcus But is this bill the right way to do that?
Common Sense Doge ⏸️
@commonsensedoge
·
534d
Great point from @GaryMarcus . If we don't make the AI companies liable for large harms, the public (and taxpayers) are liable.

https://garymarcus.substack.com/…

The statement engages in a substantive discussion about the EU AI Act and the lobbying efforts of companies against it, which is a public issue related to AI regulation. The tone is respectful and acknowledges the intellectual respectability of the opposing position while pointing out the companies' lobbying efforts.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm and maintains a respectful tone, acknowledging the intellectual respectability of the opposing position. This aligns well with the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by providing additional context about the companies' lobbying efforts against the EU AI Act. This helps to inform the discussion and contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. [+1]
  3. 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 the companies' lobbying efforts without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. This aligns well with the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]