Gary Marcus

Rank 27 of 47
|
Score 26
7/19/2024, 2:16:29 PM
X
In reply to:
Scott Kinney
@kidkosmic
·
99d
@8teAPi @GaryMarcus AI is not software?
Ate-a-Pi
@8teAPi
·
99d
@GaryMarcus Yes we need to build better software! Don’t see what that has to do with AI regulation.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
99d
Wake up.

If a single bug can take down
airlines, banks, retailers, media outlets, and more, what on earth makes you think we are ready for AGI?

The world needs to up its software game massively. We need to invest in improving software reliability and methodology, not rushing…

The statement 'Microsoft “uses its own dog food” and writes a lot of code with CoPilot. Just saying…' is part of a broader conversation about the reliability of software and the implications for AI regulation. The tone is somewhat dismissive and implies that Microsoft's use of its own tools (CoPilot) is a point of consideration in the debate about software reliability and AI regulation. The statement does engage with public issues, specifically the reliability of software and the readiness for AGI (Artificial General Intelligence).

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as dismissive of the broader concerns about software reliability and AI regulation. [-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 show a high level of respect for the privacy and dignity of others involved in the conversation.
  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 of a dismissive remark rather than a constructive contribution to the dialogue. [-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 more of a side comment that does not address the core issues raised in the conversation. [-1]