Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
9/15/2024, 7:30:30 PM
X
In reply to:
Sam J hudson
@Samjhudson83
·
491d
@sisboombahbah @DaveShapi @OpenAI @GaryMarcus Gary Marcus has planted his flag and has to defend it at all costs. AI will be discovering novel cures to diseases and designing room temperature superconducters and Gary will be saying 'yeah, but it can't X'.
C B Miller
@sisboombahbah
·
492d
@DaveShapi @OpenAI So @GaryMarcus is wrong that we need a totally new model?
David Shapiro ⏩
@DaveShapi
·
492d
For all my criticism of @OpenAI I will concede that AI just went sailing past the vast majority of humans in terms of reasoning and problem-solving capability.

I think, upon reflection, it was remarkable that just baking in CoT and Reflexion (and maybe a couple of other data…

The statement by @Samjhudson83 constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive debate about the capabilities and future of AI, which is a significant public issue. The tone is dismissive and somewhat condescending, particularly towards those who may not have a deep understanding of AI technologies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm with words and actions. The dismissive tone and suggestion that someone should 'stay out of the conversation' can be seen as harmful and exclusionary. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not respect the dignity of others. It indirectly engages in a form of cyberbullying by belittling those who may not have a deep understanding of AI. [-2]
  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 creates a divisive atmosphere by dismissing others' opinions. [-2]
  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 constructive criticism or dialogue. It resorts to a personal attack by suggesting that someone should 'stay out of the conversation' rather than addressing the argument itself. [-2]