Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 106
9/28/2024, 9:58:40 PM
X
In reply to:
Matthew Ball
@ballmatthew
·
304d
@GaryMarcus @pmarca He obviously knows that, and any experience with his Twitter posting, which I know you have, provides sufficient context to know this as well
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
304d
@ballmatthew Hmm. @pmarca’s comment is actually very confused.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
304d
Ok, but we still need “computers that aren’t neural networks” for almost all the word’s software - every database, every word processor, every operating system, every spreadsheet, and so on.

Amazing that @pmarca doesn’t know that.
Matthew Ball
@ballmatthew
·
304d
Twitter is sometimes very, very good in a serious way

The statement engages in a public discourse about the nature of computer systems and neural networks, responding to a comment about the historical development of computers. The tone is critical and somewhat dismissive, reflecting a personal grievance about being blocked on Twitter. The content addresses the need for clarity in communication and the behavior of a public figure on social media.

  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 and critical without constructive feedback, which might indirectly cause harm by fostering a negative tone. [-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 privacy but mentions being blocked, which could be seen as a personal grievance aired publicly. This does not fully respect the dignity of the person being discussed. [-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. It focuses on criticism without offering a constructive dialogue. [-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 criticism but does not do so constructively. It includes a personal attack by mentioning being blocked for no reason, which detracts from a constructive dialogue. [-1]