Gary Marcus

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 79
9/14/2024, 12:24:11 AM
X
In reply to:
tylercowen
@tylercowen
·
349d
@GaryMarcus If someone wanted to understand the last say five to seven years in AI, and how they have unfolded, your earlier writings simply are not where anyone gets sent. No one contests that.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
349d
@tylercowen That is so empty it’s beneath you. Given me actual things I said, with quotes or sources, that have been proven wrong.
tylercowen
@tylercowen
·
349d
@GaryMarcus You've been on a losing streak as of late.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
349d
@tylercowen Show me one of my predictions that has failed, aside from the specific test of the Winograd schema. I can given you dozens that have held strong for 20 years, almost with their origin in an understanding of distribution shift.
tylercowen
@tylercowen
·
349d
@GaryMarcus I observe that many people think they understand the term better than they do, and they use it to justify unduly pessimistic predictions that mostly have failed.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
349d
@tylercowen I don’t think you understand the term.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of AI predictions and their accuracy. The tone is defensive and somewhat confrontational, aiming to defend the speaker's past predictions and challenge the interlocutor's assertions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the confrontational tone could escalate tensions.
  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 engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it is somewhat dismissive and confrontational.
  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; it is more focused on defending the speaker's position. [-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 engages in a form of constructive criticism but borders on personal attacks by calling the interlocutor's comments 'incredibly empty and nonspecific.' [-1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement does not acknowledge or correct any mistakes; it is focused on defending past predictions.
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech but could be more responsible and constructive in its tone.