Gary Marcus

Rank 32 of 47
|
Score -1
6/20/2024, 9:28:13 PM
X
In reply to:
AVP
@AvpElk
·
149d
@GaryMarcus @gabequalia Honestly I don’t see the point of public debates. Maybe if it’s two academics debating a topic where the audience has little knowledge? Even then, I can probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve had a debate change my view on something. If even. I can think of any.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
149d
@AvpElk @gabequalia They have both taken potshots at me, because they both know I have something to say that they don’t want to defend against in a fair fight.
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 'That might actually say more about your imperviousness to evidence than anything else.' is a response in a conversation about the value of public debates, particularly in the context of discussing the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). The tone is somewhat confrontational and dismissive, suggesting that the person being addressed is not open to evidence-based arguments.

  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 is dismissive and could be perceived as insulting, which may cause emotional 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 does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it does not fully respect the dignity of the other person.
  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; it is more focused on discrediting the other person's openness to evidence. [-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 is a personal attack that questions the other person's intellectual integrity. [-2]