Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 3:18:04 AM
X
In reply to:
Bark Ruffalo's second personality
@TheAlphaDoggo
·
378d
@GaryMarcus @GaryMarcus Fair - I should've been more precise with terms. Let's say 'effective science communication' instead of hype. The goal should be making complex research accessible without compromising accuracy or overselling capabilities.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
378d
@TheAlphaDoggo hype is not effective communication of results; it’s exaggerated or misleading communication of results.

(I agree 100% with the rest of what you say, starting with “Real”.)
Bark Ruffalo's second personality
@TheAlphaDoggo
·
378d
@GaryMarcus @GaryMarcus False dichotomy. Real progress comes from rigorous science AND effective communication of results. The best teams do groundbreaking research while making it accessible. Hype without substance is BS, but substance without reach is wasted potential.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
378d
Dear ML community,

You need to make a decision, now.

Are you for science and transparency and openness?

Or for hype?

It can’t be both.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of science communication, specifically addressing the balance between effective communication and avoiding hype. The conversation involves a discussion on how to present scientific results to the public in a way that is both accurate and accessible.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm and seeks to clarify the intent of previous comments, 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 promotes understanding by advocating for precise language and effective communication, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+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 by acknowledging the need for precision and avoiding personal attacks, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive criticism. [+1]