Gary Marcus

Rank 32 of 47
|
Score -1
6/20/2024, 9:11:49 PM
X
In reply to:
e/acc
@tahagngr86
·
149d
@gabequalia @GaryMarcus Exactly, such a boomer!
gabe
@gabequalia
·
149d
@GaryMarcus i don’t think it’s about nerve, they simply realize you’re irrelevant to debate
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
149d
Talk is cheap; Twitter potshots are cheap.

Standing in front of moderator in a formal debate with the world watching is not.

I have invited most of the major LLM enthusiasts from Musk to Kurzweil to Altman to Hinton 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 by @GaryMarcus constitutes public discourse as it engages in a debate about the capabilities and future of large language models (LLMs), which is a significant topic in the field of artificial intelligence. The tone of the statement is defensive and somewhat confrontational, as it seeks to assert the speaker's relevance and credibility in the debate by listing endorsements and interactions with notable figures. The intent appears to be to counter the dismissive remarks made by @gabequalia and @tahagngr86.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm; it uses derogatory language ('bozos') and adopts a confrontational tone, which can escalate the conflict. [-2]
  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 privacy and dignity of others; it engages in name-calling and dismissive language, which can be seen as a form of cyberbullying. [-2]
  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 self-promotion and belittling others. [-2]
  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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue; it resorts to personal attacks and ad hominem arguments rather than addressing the substantive issues of the debate. [-2]