Gary Marcus

Rank 32 of 47
|
Score -1
6/20/2024, 9:13:09 PM
X
In reply to:
AVP
@AvpElk
·
149d
@gabequalia @GaryMarcus Musk and Altman are probably too busy achieving it to debate what they can achieve.
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 substantive debate about the willingness of prominent figures to engage in public discussions about the capabilities and future of large language models (LLMs). The tone of the statement is defensive and accusatory, suggesting that the individuals mentioned are avoiding a fair debate. The intent appears to be to challenge the credibility and willingness of these individuals to engage in open discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement partially violates the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. The accusatory tone and suggestion that others are avoiding a fair fight can be seen as harmful and inflammatory. [-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 does not respect the privacy and dignity of others, as it publicly accuses them of avoiding a fair debate, which can be seen as a form of public shaming. [-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 fosters a confrontational atmosphere. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It resorts to personal attacks by suggesting that the individuals are avoiding a fair fight, rather than addressing the substantive issues at hand. [-2]