Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 2:44:32 AM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
376d
@Miles_Brundage @metaculus My two lists are in the two bets I offered Elon and will paste links later, for clarity.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
376d
@Miles_Brundage @metaculus My list is a lot narrower than what you said above, you realize?

But good man for mostly standing behind what you say, and I accept.
Miles Brundage
@Miles_Brundage
·
376d
@GaryMarcus @metaculus I don't feel comfortable with such large amounts of money for various reasons (namely it just feels obscene given all the good we can do with our $). But sure, I'll take those odds.

Let's say:
- $1k vs. $19k
- List of benchmarks that you have previously articulated, minus…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
376d
What odds will give you me on that @Miles_Brundage? 19 to 1, if it is almost certain? My $10,000 versus your $190k?

Do you really believe this? What’s “few years”? All humans? Some humans?

Can we put this on @metaculus?
Miles Brundage
@Miles_Brundage
·
377d
In my new blog post, I share a starter pack for feeling the AGI: resources and arguments indicating that AI is virtually certain to exceed human performance in most areas in the next few years, and that the time to act is now.

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the timeline and implications of artificial general intelligence (AGI), referencing debates and predictions about its development. The conversation involves a critique of predictions about AGI and a discussion on the importance of considering physical aspects in robotics.

  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 constructive debate about AGI timelines. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by engaging in a discussion about the realistic expectations of AGI development. [+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 constructive dialogue, avoiding personal attacks and focusing on the topic. [+1]