Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 115
9/14/2024, 4:05:22 AM
X
In reply to:
Tess Hegarty 🔸
@thegartsy
·
361d
@sellieyoung @GaryMarcus @DrMikeBrooks @gleonhard Congress hasn’t passed major tech regs in a while. If you look at their campaign funding, you get a sense of why this may be. It’s an abdication of their duty to the electorate.
Ellie at Common Action
@sellieyoung
·
361d
@GaryMarcus @thegartsy @DrMikeBrooks @gleonhard Yes!! There is zero registration/regulation for tech. Business licenses should require at a minimum no massive risk to society. I mean over in the EU you have massive reporting requirements for chemical hazards; that’s not even war crimes. Where is Biden admin on this?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
361d
@thegartsy @DrMikeBrooks @gleonhard I wouldn’t accept the anthropomorphic language but it is certainly possible risks are elevated.

How much I don’t know, but it raises the question of why we don’t have an FDA-like approval process for potentially dangerous technologies.
Tess Hegarty 🔸
@thegartsy
·
361d
@DrMikeBrooks @GaryMarcus @gleonhard I think wisdom is the key framing. I think Transformer has a pretty straightforward summary of how to frame the latest release from a safety perspective.

But also curious what Gary thinks too :)

Link here:
https://www.transformernews.ai/p…
Mike Brooks
@DrMikeBrooks
·
361d
@GaryMarcus @gleonhard Gary, I trust YOU to give us the straight dope on this - has your concern level increased with OpenAI’s new model? Jeez, I don’t think real safety measures will be attempted until…something bad happens. Right now, it’s a mad race to…perhaps the bottom. We need to be wiser.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
361d
⚠️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.

The statement by @GaryMarcus constitutes public discourse as it engages with a substantive public issue—technology regulation and its societal impacts. The statement is a response to a conversation about the lack of tech regulations and the potential risks posed by unregulated technologies. The tone is promotional, as it mentions a new book, but it is also relevant to the ongoing discussion about tech regulation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is neutral in tone, focusing on promoting a book that presumably addresses the issue at hand. [+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 aims to promote understanding by contributing to the discussion on tech regulation, although it is somewhat self-promotional. [+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 does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments; it is a constructive addition to the dialogue. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    By promoting a book that presumably addresses tech regulation, the statement uses influence for the betterment of society. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly and with integrity. [+1]