Gary Marcus

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 35
7/31/2024, 4:55:08 AM
X
In reply to:
Hugo Johnny Tightlips 🤖⚛️ 🧬🦣 🦤 🦖🦕🧫🔬🧪
@hugo_fo
·
411d
@GaryMarcus @emollick Love your posts, but come on Gary, this process is called: PROGRESS. It’s great just to be tweeting, writing and teaching… move your ass and help others to achieve more.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
411d
@emollick You still can’t use them in 99%+of the world’s roads, including essentially all with bad weather,and we have no public data afaik about how much teleoperation is behind the scenes or the costs involved ramping up a new cities.

It will still be years before most people can use…
Ethan Mollick
@emollick
·
412d
Looks like we got self-driving cars after all.

The statement engages in a public discourse about the current state and availability of self-driving cars, challenging the notion that they are widely accessible. The tone is critical and somewhat confrontational, particularly in the closing remark about muting for 'misplaced condescension.'

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to correct a perceived misinformation about the availability of self-driving cars, which can be seen as striving to do no harm by providing accurate information. However, the confrontational tone may detract from this goal. [+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 of others but does not fully respect their dignity, as it includes a personal attack by calling out 'misplaced condescension' and announcing the muting of the other user. [-1]
  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 due to its confrontational nature. [-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 providing a counterpoint to the original claim about self-driving cars. However, it also includes a personal attack, which detracts from constructive dialogue.