Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
12/21/2024, 3:08:42 PM
X
In reply to:
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
203d
@GaryMarcus but the average person doesn't think more intelligence strongly correlates with ability to ride mountain bikes or meow.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
203d
@iruletheworldmo the average person can walk into an average home and navigate it. with 30 min training they could teleop a robot to do that.
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
203d
@GaryMarcus well it’s like yanns shtick about not being as intelligent as a cat. I'm speaking about intelligence from the pov of the average person on the street. people in academic love to complicate it. we all know what intelligence is and what scaling it up would look like
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
203d
@iruletheworldmo feel free to make your own criteria and list.

Steve Wozniak made up the coffee test as a way of getting at understanding the real world. if you replace it, find something else that addresses it.
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
203d
@GaryMarcus yeah but o3 isn't trained to be good at anything.

or rather. it's initially given lots of data and then trained to be good at broad reasoning. which it applies generally.

I also hate any definition of agi that needs to be embodied. this whole, can it walk into a random…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
203d
@iruletheworldmo [1. how should i know what’s in your anonymous head?]
2. i think an AGI should be able to control a robot as well as a human can teleoperate a robot. Is that not reasonable? Humans could teleop all those things.
3. A domain-specific medical system doesn’t necessarily entail AGI.…

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the nature of intelligence and artificial general intelligence (AGI), engaging with public issues related to technology and cognitive science. The tone is conversational and analytical, aiming to clarify misconceptions about intelligence.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is part of a reasoned discussion, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement seeks to clarify a point about intelligence, which can promote understanding, though it does not explicitly foster empathy or compassion. [+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 engages in dialogue without personal attacks, focusing on the topic rather than the individual, thus adhering to constructive criticism. [+1]