Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 3:33:07 AM
X
In reply to:
David Balfour
@hal_incandenza4
·
385d
@GaryMarcus @ZggyPlaydGuitar @fchollet @doomie @GoogleDeepMind Look I’m not an Altman fan boy. I’m not even an AI or deep learning or whatever believer. We’ll see what happens eventually. I just think your comment was in poor taste and you aren’t extending a modicum of good faith (whatever your other problems with him)
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
385d
@hal_incandenza4 @ZggyPlaydGuitar @fchollet @doomie @GoogleDeepMind I said that *exactly* because I didn’t think Sam was transparent (though it took me a couple hours after that to exactly nail where the problem was).
David Balfour
@hal_incandenza4
·
385d
@GaryMarcus @ZggyPlaydGuitar @fchollet @doomie @GoogleDeepMind Gary, please don’t insult my (and other’s) intelligence. If you really think “the issue here was not what was done but how it was reported” you would not have said this
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
385d
@hal_incandenza4 @ZggyPlaydGuitar @fchollet @doomie @GoogleDeepMind I can’t 100% speak to Sam’s intentions (though I have written before about previous concerns I have and others have had about his honesty).

But I am glad that you acknowledged that the language was ambiguous to a lot of the audience. The issue here was not what was done but it…
David Balfour
@hal_incandenza4
·
385d
@GaryMarcus @ZggyPlaydGuitar @fchollet @doomie @GoogleDeepMind I guess the language was ambiguous to a lot of the audience. I think Altman said that directly to the sponsor assuming he knew what he meant, in reaction to his colleague’s choice of words. It wasn’t pre-scripted and I doubt he intended to mislead
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
385d
@hal_incandenza4 @ZggyPlaydGuitar @fchollet I believe that @doomie from @GoogleDeepMind (Veo project inter alia) had much the same reaction I did.

I certainly didn’t hear “no targeting” it as “no cheating”; i heard it as no teaching to the test, and 750 training items feels like teaching to the test when i know humans…

The conversation involves a debate about transparency and honesty in AI practices, specifically regarding training data. The tone is critical and somewhat confrontational, with accusations of poor taste and lack of good faith. The discussion touches on public issues related to AI ethics and transparency.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement by Gary Marcus could be seen as harmful due to its accusatory nature, potentially damaging reputations without clear evidence. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The conversation respects privacy but includes personal attacks, which could undermine dignity. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The dialogue lacks empathy and understanding, focusing more on criticism than constructive discussion. [-1]
  4. 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 exchange involves personal attacks rather than constructive criticism, reducing the potential for productive dialogue. [-2]