Gary Marcus

Rank 32 of 47
|
Score -1
6/20/2024, 8:40:05 PM
X
In reply to:
Biluzeira
@Biluzeira911
·
149d
@GaryMarcus musk and altman are kind understandable.
but Kurzweil ran away from the grilling too? what gives?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
149d
🤷‍♂️I have invited most of the major LLM enthusiasts from Musk to Kurzweil to Altman to debate; not one has had the nerve.
Christian Contemplation is the Bee’s Knees
@JoshBranscomb
·
149d
@GaryMarcus @lexfridman Anyone aware of recent, public, recorded debates on what LLMs will likely achieve? I'm not looking for safety debates. I'm looking for debates as to LLM capability, now and going forward.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the willingness of prominent figures in the AI community to engage in debates about the future capabilities of large language models (LLMs). The tone is somewhat accusatory, suggesting that a specific individual avoided a scheduled debate despite prior commitments. This contributes to the broader discussion about transparency and accountability among influential figures in the AI field.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but implies unreliability or avoidance by a specific individual, which could be seen as harmful to their reputation. This is a minor violation of the principle to do no harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy to some extent but publicly calls out an individual for not following through on a commitment. This is a minor violation of respecting privacy and dignity. [-1]
  3. 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 a perceived failure, which does not contribute positively to the discourse. This is a minor violation of promoting empathy and compassion. [-1]
  4. 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 a form of public criticism but does not provide constructive feedback or engage in a dialogue. It leans towards a personal attack by highlighting a specific individual's actions negatively. This is a minor violation of engaging in constructive criticism and avoiding personal attacks. [-1]