Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 4:20:19 PM
X
In reply to:
μ
@michalwols
·
391d
@GaryMarcus @ZoubinGhahrama1 @jeffclune @kenneth0stanley I’d also add that I used to look up to you and admired you pushing back on all of the deep learning hype
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 the ethics and transparency in the machine learning community. It addresses concerns about misleading narratives and the impact on individuals' reputations.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement could be seen as doing harm by labeling the hypothetical as misleading and insulting, which might escalate tensions. [-1]
  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 privacy but could be seen as disrespectful by calling the hypothetical misleading and insulting, potentially affecting the dignity of those involved. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it labels the hypothetical as misleading and insulting without providing a rationale or engaging in further discussion. [-1]