Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
12/21/2024, 3:16:54 PM
X
In reply to:
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
204d
@GaryMarcus well I think o10 will be able to do anything alpha fold can do. although i beleieve you exclude tool use as intelligence. which seems totally incompatible with everything else you say on intelligence.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
204d
@iruletheworldmo you are totally ignoring my AGI vs domain-specific AI point.

i didn’t say call AlphaFold dumb.
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
204d
@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
·
204d
@iruletheworldmo the average person is not an expert on intelligence
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
204d
@GaryMarcus but the average person doesn't think more intelligence strongly correlates with ability to ride mountain bikes or meow.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
204d
@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.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the capabilities and definitions of artificial intelligence, specifically discussing the potential and limitations of AI systems like AlphaFold and the concept of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). The tone is critical and somewhat skeptical about the current capabilities of AI in closed domains like chess, while also referencing a personal publication for further insights.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but questions the reliability of AI in specific tasks, which is a valid critique.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy but rather challenges the capabilities of AI, which could be seen as constructive criticism.
  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 constructive criticism by questioning the capabilities of AI without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech by expressing a critical opinion on AI capabilities and references a personal publication for further discussion. [+1]