Gary Marcus

Rank 18 of 47
|
Score 95
10/1/2024, 10:20:26 PM
X
In reply to:
SimplyHuman
@ArchHomunculus
·
83d
@GaryMarcus @jam3scampbell AGI doesn’t have to be reliable. It simply has to reach the stated or intended goal. I’m looking forward to seeing you walk this back over the next few years
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
84d
@jam3scampbell Meaning, of course: AGI by 2027 is not plausible. We are too far from reliability, sound reasoning, planning, etc, and still saddled with black boxes that regularly hallucinate, etc
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
84d
@jam3scampbell 2027 is not plausible.
James Campbell
@jam3scampbell
·
85d
humans suck at generalization too btw.

for example, most ppl fail to generalize from “AGI by 2027 seems strikingly plausible” to “holy shit maybe I shouldn’t treat everything else in my life as business-as-usual”

The statement '@ArchHomunculus @jam3scampbell Define “few” lol' is a lighthearted, conversational reply within a broader discussion about the plausibility of achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) by 2027. The tone is casual and humorous, aiming to clarify or challenge the use of the term 'few' in a previous statement. It does not substantively engage with the public issue of AGI development, reliability, or its societal implications.