Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 4:19:19 PM
X
In reply to:
μ
@michalwols
·
391d
@GaryMarcus @ZoubinGhahrama1 @jeffclune @kenneth0stanley I talked to multiple investors around that time who were convinced that collecting and annotating data was a waste of time because few shot learning was a solved problem
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 discussion on the ethics and transparency in the machine learning community, specifically addressing accusations and clarifications regarding claims made about AI development and investment strategies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but is part of a heated exchange that could potentially 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 maintains respect for privacy and dignity by not engaging in cyberbullying or hate speech, but it is part of a conversation that includes accusations and demands for retraction.
  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 is a denial of a previous claim, which is a form of engaging in dialogue, but it does not provide constructive criticism or further the conversation productively. [-1]