Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 115
9/14/2024, 2:55:05 AM
X
In reply to:
Josh Koenig
@realjoshkoenig
·
360d
@GaryMarcus @olivia_p_walker You cannot take these people at their word. "Our tech is dangerous!" is a transparent PR ploy. They use it to get attention.

If there's any more social risk posed by these models than the anarchist's cookbook I'll eat my hat.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
360d
@olivia_p_walker OpenAI literally said they are putting the world at some degree of greater risk and nobody has any say over that. That’s just wrong.

and if we ignore that reality now, where are we when the increase in risk is 10 or 100x?

You are really off here.
Olivia P. Walker
@olivia_p_walker
·
360d
@GaryMarcus until I research and learn more, I can’t bring myself to get my panties in a bunch
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
360d
⚠️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
·
360d
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 by @realjoshkoenig, 'I am curious: which part of 100x did you not follow?' is a response to a discussion about the potential risks posed by new AI models from OpenAI. The conversation involves concerns about the societal risks of AI technology, the transparency of tech companies, and the accountability of their leaders. The tone of the statement is inquisitive and somewhat critical, aiming to challenge the previous comments in the thread.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as dismissive of the concerns raised by others in the conversation. This could potentially undermine the seriousness of the issue being discussed. [-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, as it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  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 challenges the previous comments without providing constructive input or acknowledging the concerns raised. [-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 dialogue but does so in a manner that could be perceived as dismissive or confrontational rather than constructive. It does not offer a solution or a constructive critique but rather questions the understanding of the previous commenter. [-1]