Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 56
8/3/2024, 7:19:52 PM
X
In reply to:
Nick Davidov
@Nick_Davidov
·
411d
@GaryMarcus This is an impressive PR profile, but doesn’t provide evidence of why you have acumen in investments and economics. I don’t write wired articles about symbolic systems because I’m no expert in them, despite seeing them as an adjacent field for 15 years.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
411d
@Nick_Davidov You can read my new substack article to see what i think will follow. Re bona fides, I don’t think it is remotely outside my expertise. Here’s why (from that article):
Nick Davidov
@Nick_Davidov
·
411d
@GaryMarcus What’s the point of this article Gary? It might be a bit outside of your field of expertise, so I’m wondering why
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
412d
I just wrote a great piece for WIRED predicting that the AI bubble will in collapse in 2025, and now I wish I hadn’t.

Clearly, I got the year wrong. It’s going to be days or weeks from now, not months.

The statement by @GaryMarcus addresses a public debate about expertise and the validity of predictions in the field of AI and economics. The tone is defensive and challenges the critique by @Nick_Davidov, emphasizing the accuracy of past predictions and questioning the focus on credentials rather than the substance of the argument.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the defensive tone could escalate the argument rather than promote a constructive dialogue. Minor violation. [-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 privacy and dignity, but the tone is somewhat confrontational, which could be seen as dismissive. Minor violation. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to promote understanding by pointing to the accuracy of past predictions and inviting a discussion on the logic presented in the Substack article. Alignment. [+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 challenges the critique constructively by asking for specific disagreements with the logic rather than focusing on credentials. Alignment. [+1]