Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 114
10/4/2024, 8:34:47 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
313d
@saltytommy @GregKara6 @OpenAI Only a fool would fail to see that they pose serious risks to humanity. even Altman himself said that, right next to me at the Senate.
Tommy Salty
@saltytommy
·
313d
@GregKara6 @GaryMarcus @OpenAI A company that burns through money and hurts the environment, overpromises, has a weird business model, whose products actively harm and devalue the work of real talent by stealing it.

Yeah, I wonder why a leading scientist in the field has reservations about them.
Greg Kara
@GregKara6
·
313d
@GaryMarcus Your laser sharp focus on hating on @OpenAI, as the leading "AI" critic, speaks volumes on who is the leader in the industry and showcases quite the opposite.

I don't see you hating on competitors as much, if at all.

All you had to do is report the news, and could have even…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
314d
openAI is running scared.
Deedy
@deedydas
·
314d
The five startups OpenAI doesn't want their investors to fund are:

Anthropic
xAI
SSI (Ilya's company)
Perplexity
Glean

The statement is part of a public discourse about the ethical concerns and competitive practices of OpenAI. It expresses skepticism and criticism towards the company, suggesting it is ethically challenged and deceptive. The tone is critical and somewhat sarcastic, questioning whether to suppress concerns to avoid offending others.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement raises ethical concerns about OpenAI, which could be seen as an attempt to highlight potential harm, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm. However, the sarcastic tone may undermine this intent. [+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 does not engage in direct harassment or hate speech, but the sarcastic tone could be seen as disrespectful, potentially violating the principle of respecting the dignity of others. [-1]
  3. 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 dialogue and instead uses sarcasm, which could be seen as a personal attack or ad hominem argument, violating this principle. [-1]