Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 115
9/14/2024, 2:57:48 AM
X
In reply to:
Bjorn
@BjornHansenMMA
·
360d
@GaryMarcus @elonmusk I know that. It’s why you’re one of my most important follows.

But, does its current failure of this “chess test” automatically guarantee a failure of future AGI?

I think that’s a stretch. Is that really so flabbergasting?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
360d
@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.
Bjorn
@BjornHansenMMA
·
360d
@GaryMarcus @elonmusk If it did, would you care?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
361d
🤣 @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
·
361d
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 substantive discussion about the future of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and its current limitations, particularly in the context of its performance in chess. The tone is respectful and acknowledges a potential misunderstanding, aiming to clarify the initial comment. The conversation involves multiple participants discussing the capabilities and future of AGI, which is a significant public issue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm and maintains a respectful tone, even when addressing a potential misunderstanding. This aligns well with the principle of doing no harm with words and actions. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding and empathy by acknowledging a potential misunderstanding and clarifying the initial comment. This helps to foster a constructive dialogue. [+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 engages in constructive criticism and dialogue without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. It focuses on the topic of AGI and its future, rather than attacking individuals. [+1]