Gary Marcus

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 19
9/25/2024, 10:30:57 PM
X
In reply to:
Olivia P. Walker
@olivia_p_walker
·
421d
@GaryMarcus gary, what does this mean in your opinion?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
421d
Wait what? Murati is leaving, Schulman left, Karpathy left, Ilya left, Leike left, Brockman is on leave, perhaps a dozen others left, GPT-5 hasn’t dropped, Sora hasn’t shipped, the company had an operating loss of $5b last year, there is no obvious moat, Meta is giving away…
Mira Murati
@miramurati
·
421d
I shared the following note with the OpenAI team today.

The statement by @GaryMarcus in response to @olivia_p_walker constitutes public discourse as it engages with the topic of significant personnel changes and operational challenges at OpenAI, a matter of public interest in the tech community. The reply by @GaryMarcus to @olivia_p_walker, asking her to subscribe to his Substack for answers, can be analyzed for its adherence to the principles of public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but it could be seen as dismissive of @olivia_p_walker's question, which might be perceived as unhelpful.
  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 privacy and dignity, as it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. However, it could be seen as slightly dismissive, which might not fully respect the dignity of the person asking the question.
  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 redirects the person to another platform without addressing the question directly. [-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 constructive criticism or dialogue. It redirects the conversation rather than addressing the question, which could be seen as avoiding engagement in meaningful dialogue. [-1]