Gary Marcus

Rank 21 of 47
|
Score 57
9/14/2024, 1:04:22 AM
X
In reply to:
Ellie at Common Action
@sellieyoung
·
350d
@DerekJCardwell @GaryMarcus Why are you insulting me?
Derek Johnson
@DerekJCardwell
·
350d
@sellieyoung @GaryMarcus sounds like it's working. are you able to think critically and for yourself without repeating your one-liners from your echo-chambers? just curious.
Ellie at Common Action
@sellieyoung
·
350d
@DerekJCardwell @GaryMarcus It has always been good at throwing a lot of explosive material in a big pot.
Derek Johnson
@DerekJCardwell
·
350d
@GaryMarcus so now the AI works?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
350d
⚠️What’s below is not a joke, and not a drill. Sam Altman can do whatever he wants, with almost no liability, and no oversight, internal or external, even if it puts humanity at risk.

⚠️No unelected leader should have that power.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
350d
hey everybody, we might increase the chance that you or a loved one might die in a biological weapons attack, but don’t sweat it … because ... we only make it available to paid subscribers.

The statement 'I had already muted this guy but may block him in solidarity against his ad hominem bs' is a response to a perceived personal attack in a conversation about the potential risks of AI technology. The tone is defensive and dismissive, indicating frustration with the perceived ad hominem attacks. The intent appears to be to support another user who feels insulted and to take a stand against what is seen as unproductive discourse.

  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 involves blocking someone rather than engaging constructively. This could be seen as a minor violation of promoting understanding and empathy. [-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 respects the privacy and dignity of others to some extent by not engaging in direct insults, but it does involve a public declaration of blocking someone, which could be seen as a form of public shaming. This is a minor violation. [-1]
  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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. Instead, it opts for blocking, which shuts down potential for dialogue and understanding. This is a significant violation. [-2]