Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 4:18:19 PM
X
In reply to:
μ
@michalwols
·
391d
@GaryMarcus @ZoubinGhahrama1 @jeffclune @kenneth0stanley I’m not accusing you of anything, it was a sarcastic hypothetical question playing on your claims that others were not for open science and are just hyping things up

I have immense respect and admiration for all the people you just mentioned.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
391d
@michalwols also you have just wrongly defamed @ZoubinGhahrama1 @jeffclune @kenneth0stanley Doug Bemis Noah Goodman Eli Bingham and many others who worked on the project and were proud of our IP.

I strongly urge you retract your dishonest and incorrect words.
μ
@michalwols
·
391d
@GaryMarcus Is it hype when you pretend to have a secretive alternative and trick uber into buying it for enough to tank the whole ATG group?

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/ub…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
391d
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 involving a debate on transparency and openness in the scientific community, particularly in the context of corporate acquisitions and intellectual property. The tone is defensive, aiming to clarify and defend against perceived accusations.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but it is part of a heated exchange that could escalate tensions.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by not engaging in direct personal attacks, but it is part of a conversation that includes accusations and defensive responses. [-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 attempts to engage in dialogue by clarifying the speaker's position, but it is defensive and could be seen as escalating the conflict rather than fostering constructive criticism. [-1]