Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
9/2/2024, 9:55:22 PM
X
In reply to:
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
523d
@GaryMarcus it feels like something could cure all disease and still have these flaws.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
523d
thanks for asking, 🍓🍓🍓
1. We shouldn’t trying to slavishly replicate human intelligence (doing that for arithmetic would be stupid; humans have lots of flaws). We are trying to build something with the resourcefulness of human intelligence (so far we have failed).
2. Computers…
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
523d
@GaryMarcus I'm interested why you're so adamant that agi should have a higher bar than our smartest humans.

obviously a calculator should be infallible.

but we're not aiming to build a tool, but human like intelligence.

The statement '@iruletheworldmo You are not going to cure all disease if you can’t reason your way out of a paper bag.' is a direct reply in a conversation about artificial general intelligence (AGI) and its potential flaws. The tone is dismissive and condescending, aiming to undermine the credibility of the person it addresses rather than engaging constructively with the topic at hand.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does harm by belittling the other person, violating the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [-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 disrespects the dignity of the other person and can be seen as a form of cyberbullying or harassment. [-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 fosters a hostile environment. [-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 fails to engage in constructive criticism and dialogue, opting for a personal attack instead of addressing the argument. [-2]