Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 76
6/16/2024, 1:01:35 PM
X
In reply to:
Frank Rundatz
@FrankRundatz
·
512d
@GaryMarcus I’m not sure there’s a better analogy than AGI to cold fusion. All the way back in 1989 charlatans were claiming to have attained room temperature fusion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
Frank Rundatz
@FrankRundatz
·
512d
@GaryMarcus AGI is more like cold fusion.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
512d
Essay question: is AGI more like flying cars, jet packs, a cure for cancer and Rosie the Robot (long-promised, thus far never delivered at scale) or automobiles, airplanes, smartphones and the internet (delivered at scale and now ubiquitous)?
Sifossifoco
@Sifossifoco1
·
512d
@GaryMarcus @business We are in fact still waiting for flying cars and the cure for cancer that were expected so many years ago

The statement engages in a public discourse about the development and potential of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) by drawing an analogy to cold fusion, a scientific concept that has been controversial and largely discredited. The conversation involves multiple participants discussing the feasibility and timeline of AGI, comparing it to other technological promises and breakthroughs. The tone is analytical and aims to provide context and evidence to support the analogy.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm by engaging in a factual and analytical discussion about AGI and cold fusion, without resorting to personal attacks or harmful language. It provides a link to a Wikipedia article for further reading, which can be seen as promoting informed discussion. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding and empathy by providing historical context about cold fusion, which helps readers understand the analogy being made. It encourages readers to consider the challenges and skepticism surrounding AGI in a similar light. [+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 dialogue by responding to a previous comment with additional information and context. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, but rather focuses on the substance of the discussion. [+1]