Gary Marcus

Rank 26 of 47
|
Score 60
7/3/2024, 3:33:20 PM
X
In reply to:
Vic Klien
@VicKlien
·
112d
@thomasdylandan2 @GaryMarcus I agree with Gary's two answers. But to be clear, the Yes to achieving AGI includes "ever". So that means unlimited time, and is not limited to current technology.

A lot can happen in the next 10, 100, 1000 years, and will certainly include new technologies.
T. Dylan Daniel
@thomasdylandan2
·
112d
@GaryMarcus How is the first question almost certainly a yes? Can I get a little walkthrough of how it might go that relies on any current technology?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
112d
Two questions that are sometimes conflated:
1. Will AGI ever be achieved,
2.Will be achieved simply by scaling current techniques.

The answer to the first question is almost certainly YES; the answer to the second is almost certainly NO.

[Fun history lesson below is a…
Dariusz Kot
@realDariuszKot
·
113d
old chess machine unable to play more than 2 moves

The statement engages in a discussion about the potential for achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and the time frame in which it might be possible. The tone is analytical and supportive of the idea that AGI could be achieved given an unlimited time window. The intent is to contribute to the debate on AGI by expressing skepticism towards arguments against its eventual achievement.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm and is part of a constructive debate on a technological issue, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by engaging in a reasoned discussion about the potential for AGI, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding, empathy, and compassion. [+1]
  3. 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 dialogue without personal attacks, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]