Gary Marcus

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -20
6/23/2024, 3:36:17 AM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
136d
@olivia_p_walker @garrytan @ycombinator not worse than aviation, automobiles etc by any stretch. there should be some regulatory burden since there are clear risks that the tech companies themselves have acknowledged.
Olivia P. Walker
@olivia_p_walker
·
136d
@GaryMarcus @garrytan @ycombinator If you read the bill, you’ll understand the regulatory burden on Tech co’s.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
136d
Hey @garrytan @ycombinator your letter on California’s AI regulation seems awfully sensationalist and alarmist to me. Have I missed something?

You say “AI software developers could go to jail simply for failing to anticipate misuse of their software–a standard of product…
Garry Tan
@garrytan
·
137d
SB1047 is not the right path.

This bill, as it stands, could gravely harm California’s ability to retain its AI talent and remain the location of choice for AI companies. We hope Sen. Wiener chooses a path that protects startups and open source AI.

https://www.politico.com/newslet…

The statement engages in a public discourse about the regulatory burden on tech companies, specifically in the context of AI regulation. The tone is assertive and suggests that large companies can handle the regulatory requirements for the public good.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm with words and actions. It is focused on the regulatory burden and does not use harmful language. [+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 the privacy and dignity of others. It does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by suggesting that large companies can manage the regulatory burden for the public good. However, it could be more empathetic towards the concerns of these companies. [+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 constructive criticism by suggesting that large companies can handle the regulatory burden. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to advocate for the betterment of society by suggesting that companies can handle regulatory burdens for the public good. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly and with integrity. [+1]