Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47

Score 76

@davidmanheim Well maybe it’s not a literal contradiction, but i take the first statement to much stronger than the second, which spreads the probability mass around quite a bit. 10-20 perhaps vs 10-40 perhaps.

6/15/2024, 6:06:13 PM

In reply to:

David Manheim

@davidmanheim

516d

@GaryMarcus This seems like a motivated misunderstanding.
Do you really see a contradiction between "seeing the last decade of progress, it could plausibly be repeated in the coming 10 years, which would be superintelligence" and "overall, I think there's a 50-50 chance of AGI in 20 years"?

The statement is part of a substantive engagement with a public issue, specifically the debate around the timeline for achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI). The tone is analytical and aims to clarify a point of contention in the discussion.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not cause harm and is focused on clarifying a point, thus adhering to the principle. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by attempting to clarify a perceived contradiction, aligning with the principle. [+1]
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 without personal attacks, adhering to the principle. [+1]