Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 79
9/12/2024, 6:00:16 PM
X
In reply to:
Eli⭐
@RootieDaHoodie
·
245d
@GaryMarcus @polynoamial It rubs you the wrong way because it completely annihilates all your talking points.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
245d
Dear @polynoamial of OpenAI, re your new o1 model,

I really like a lot of your work, but tweet below rubs me the wrong way, because it invites the inference that running versions of o1 for weeks or months might create a new cancer drug (in reality, at best you just get new…
Noam Brown
@polynoamial
·
245d
@OpenAI @rao2z @OpenAI's o1 thinks for seconds, but we aim for future versions to think for hours, days, even weeks. Inference costs will be higher, but what cost would you pay for a new cancer drug? For breakthrough batteries? For a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis? AI can be more than chatbots

The statement by @RootieDaHoodie constitutes public discourse as it engages in a debate about the capabilities and implications of AI models, which is a significant public issue. The reply by @polynoamial, however, does not uphold the principles of constructive public discourse effectively.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement by @polynoamial does not strive to do no harm. It includes a personal attack and dismissive language, which can be harmful. [-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 privacy and dignity of others. It engages in cyberbullying by calling out and belittling another user. [-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 shuts down dialogue and understanding by being dismissive and hostile. [-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 personal attacks rather than addressing the points made in the discussion. [-2]