Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
9/2/2024, 5:10:43 PM
X
In reply to:
Laurence Molloy
@MolloyLaurence
·
525d
@GaryMarcus @jefferinc You haven't allowed it to use code Interpreter. That's like tying someone's feet together and the entering them in a running race.

With code Interpreter it would have got the answer correct... and I think you know that.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
525d
@jefferinc It’s an easy example of basic information integration. What’s confusing about it?
Jeffry Blas
@jefferinc
·
525d
@GaryMarcus To be fair useless and confusing request
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
525d
Over $50 billion dollars invested, and our AI can’t reliably answer basic questions like this.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
525d
Total shitshow.

The statement 'It should do that automatically and not make shit up' is a response to a discussion about the performance of an AI system in handling a specific task. The tone is critical and uses informal language, including profanity, to express frustration with the AI's performance. The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the capabilities and reliability of AI technology, which is a significant public issue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm, as it uses profanity which can be seen as disrespectful or harmful. [-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 does not respect the dignity of others, as the use of profanity can be considered disrespectful. [-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, as it is primarily critical and does not offer constructive feedback. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it uses a dismissive tone and profanity rather than providing specific, actionable feedback. [-1]