Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 56
8/3/2024, 7:21:08 PM
X
In reply to:
Free
@KaladinFree
·
411d
@GaryMarcus @generic_void Your point not makes sense if I need my AI agent to carry goats across a river for me.

If I need my AI agent to handle initial client inquiries, manage my CRM, and create client proposals on my behalf, your point is destroyed.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
412d
@generic_void 🤣. If you can’t solve river-boat-goat problems reliably, agents gonna be reliable anytime soon.
SMA 🏴‍☠️
@generic_void
·
412d
@GaryMarcus It’s ok agents are just around the corner
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 in question is a reply within a public discourse about the reliability and future of AI agents. The tone is dismissive and somewhat derogatory, aiming to criticize the previous comment by calling it 'one of the dumber replies.' The intent appears to be to discredit the argument made by @KaladinFree and @generic_void by pointing out perceived flaws in their reasoning.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm with words and actions. Calling someone's reply 'one of the dumber replies' is dismissive and can be considered harmful. (-2 points) [-2]
  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 respect the dignity of others and borders on cyberbullying by using derogatory language. (-2 points) [-2]
  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. Instead, it dismisses the other person's argument without constructive engagement. (-2 points) [-2]
  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 resorts to a personal attack by calling the reply 'dumb' rather than addressing the substance of the argument. (-2 points) [-2]