Gary Marcus

Rank 16 of 47
|
Score 64
7/30/2024, 9:20:06 PM
X
In reply to:
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
@kidehen
·
448d
@Scobleizer This is indeed an interesting scenario. I would go with the #AI-based bot in that situation.

@GaryMarcus: Your thoughts about this very interesting situation. For instance, I can shout out questions to my multimodal assistant in such a crisis.

#UseCase #GenAI
Robert Scoble
@Scobleizer
·
448d
@kidehen I've been asking it a bunch of crisis questions. It answers properly.

When you are in a crisis, like a loved one is having a heart attack, it's too late to check out the answers.
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
@kidehen
·
448d
@Scobleizer You mean:
Use #AI first, but always check what it suggests en route to making the final decision?
Robert Scoble
@Scobleizer
·
448d
“It was Claude who heard the details leading up to this and declared the situation is dangerous and we have to call the fire department ASAP.”

Humans suck in crisis.

Use AI first and you will make better decisions.
ryunuck (p≈np)
@ryunuck
·
449d
claude sonnet 3.5 just saved the house and everybody's life

The statement 'If it can be made to be reliable enough, sure. Can it be?' is part of a broader discussion about the reliability and use of AI in crisis situations. The tone is inquisitive and seeks to understand the feasibility of AI in critical scenarios. The conversation touches on the potential benefits and risks of relying on AI for decision-making in emergencies, which is a significant public issue.

  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 dialogue about the reliability of AI in crisis situations. It neither promotes nor dismisses the use of AI outright but seeks further clarification, which is a responsible approach. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by asking a question that encourages further discussion and exploration of the topic. It shows a willingness to engage in a thoughtful conversation about the potential and limitations of AI. [+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 or ad hominem arguments. It focuses on the issue at hand and seeks to understand the reliability of AI in crisis situations. [+1]