Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 76
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
465d
SCOOP: OpenAI may lose $5B this year & may run out of cash in 12 months, unless they raise more $, per analysis @theinformation.

Investors should ask: What is their moat? Unique tech? What is their route in profitability when Meta is giving away similar tech for free? Do they…
7/24/2024, 8:03:53 PM
X
In reply to:
Aʟᴇᴋꜱᴀɴᴅʀᴀ ᴘʀᴢᴇɢᴀʟɪɴꜱᴋᴀ
@Przegaa
·
464d
@GaryMarcus This is a bit too harsh. I agree with a lot of what you write but gen AI has effectively transformed the lives and work of many people already
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
464d
Within 12 months, the GenAI bubble will have burst.
• The economics don’t work
• The current approach has reached a plateau
• There is no killer app
• Hallucinations remain
• Boneheaded errors remain
• Nobody has a moat
• People are starting to realize all of the above. https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/s…

The statement 'Not enough to make the economics work' is a concise response to a discussion about the economic viability of generative AI (GenAI) technologies. The conversation involves multiple participants discussing the financial sustainability and impact of GenAI, particularly focusing on OpenAI's financial challenges. The statement contributes to the public discourse by addressing the economic aspect of the debate.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is a factual observation about the economic challenges faced by GenAI technologies. It aligns 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 is neutral and does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is a straightforward economic assessment without emotional or empathetic content.
  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 by providing a counterpoint to the previous comment. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, thus adhering to the principle of constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]