Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
12/21/2024, 3:12:52 PM
X
In reply to:
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
203d
@GaryMarcus by these defifnions we'll have systems that cure all known disease, prevent death, show us time travel and all knowable secrets of the universe.

but let's call them dumb because they can't ride a mountain bike or pour a coffee. it's nonsense. it bends the meaning of…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
203d
@iruletheworldmo the average person is not an expert on intelligence
🍓🍓🍓
@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.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of artificial general intelligence (AGI) versus domain-specific AI, engaging in a debate about the definitions and implications of intelligence in AI systems. The tone is corrective, aiming to clarify a misunderstanding in the ongoing conversation.

  1. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to promote understanding by clarifying a point about AGI versus domain-specific AI, which aligns with the principle of promoting understanding, empathy, and compassion. [+1]
  2. 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 constructive criticism by addressing a specific point of disagreement without resorting to personal attacks, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue. [+1]