Gary Marcus

Rank 21 of 47
|
Score 55
9/9/2024, 1:18:13 PM
X
In reply to:
Carlos E. Perez
@IntuitMachine
·
295d
@GaryMarcus Murky?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
295d
100% what I have been trying to say: the negatives of GenAI are increasingly clear, while (thanks to inherent unreliability and lack of factual grounding) the positives remain murky.
Paris Marx
@parismarx
·
296d
Last year, AI boosters couldn’t shut up about how chatbots would improve healthcare, education, and become an assistant for any task imaginable.

But as more research is done on AI tools, the benefits seem illusive and the drawbacks are impossible to deny. https://disconnect.blog/roundup-…

The statement 'Like maybe they will work, maybe they won’t, and data aren’t super compelling so far.' is part of a broader conversation about the efficacy and impact of generative AI, which is a significant public issue. The tone is skeptical and the intent is to express doubt about the current benefits of generative AI based on available data.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm with words and actions. It is a neutral expression of skepticism based on data. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does contribute to a critical discussion about generative AI.
  3. 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 of generative AI without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly to question the efficacy of generative AI. [+1]