Gary Marcus

Rank 21 of 47

Score 37

-8

@fivetroop And he relentlessly attacked me for saying it, for years. Which he has now conveniently forgotten. What a pitiful man, trying so hard to stay relevant, by rewriting the past.

6/13/2024, 11:24:05 AM

In reply to:

Dirk Roeckmann

@fivetroop

526d

Yep, but before you said it, @garymarcus knew it all along. It’s common-sense that a paradigm without a world model, incapable of planning and causal inference can do the trick

Yann LeCun

@ylecun

526d

"LLMs are an offramp on the path to AGI"
I seem to remember hearing this before 🤔

The statement by @fivetroop constitutes public discourse as it engages in a debate about the development and implications of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), a significant public issue in the field of technology and ethics. The tone of the statement is accusatory and personal, focusing on past interactions and the character of the individual being addressed.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does harm by attacking the character of the individual, calling them 'pitiful' and accusing them of trying to stay relevant by rewriting the past. This violates the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [-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 respect the dignity of the individual it addresses, engaging in a form of personal attack that could be considered harassment. This violates the principle of respecting the privacy and dignity of others. [-2]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it focuses on discrediting the individual, which is counterproductive to constructive dialogue. [-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 fails to engage in constructive criticism and instead resorts to personal attacks, violating the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue without ad hominem arguments. [-2]