Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47

Score 115

@BjornHansenMMA @elonmusk I literally spend every day thinking about AGI, how we get there, how to do it in a positive way, etc.

I am honestly flabbergasted by your question.

9/14/2024, 2:52:40 AM

In reply to:

Bjorn

@BjornHansenMMA

360d

@GaryMarcus @elonmusk If it did, would you care?

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

360d

🤣 @elonmusk thinks we will have AGI better than all humans next year, and the latest model can’t even follow the rules of chess.

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

360d

One of my (easier) benchmarks over the last couple years has been the ability of chatbots to play chess without illegal moves.

Looks like @Kasparov63’s still got nothing to worry about it.

The statement engages in a public discourse about the development and implications of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The tone is defensive and somewhat incredulous, indicating a strong personal investment in the topic. The content addresses the feasibility and ethical considerations of AGI, which are significant public concerns.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not appear to cause harm; it is a response to a question and expresses a personal commitment to positive outcomes in AGI development. [+1]
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, focusing on the topic rather than attacking individuals. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by sharing the speaker's dedication to thinking about AGI in a positive way, though it could be more constructive in addressing the question posed. [+1]
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 personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, but it could be more constructive in addressing the specific concerns raised by the question.