Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
12/23/2024, 1:09:47 PM
X
In reply to:
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
393d
@GaryMarcus I'm allowed to have my own definition for agi. for me, it doesn't need to be embodied and sama's descriptions are closer to asi. likely to avoid breaking his deal with Microsoft.

something that can complete any intellectual knowledge sector work, where you only need a mouse and…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
393d
@iruletheworldmo Um (a) you are just an anonymous influencer and (b) you didn’t give a definition or argue for it whereas mine (see dear Elon musk essay) was derived from those who originated the term.

The point of the mountain biking isn’t the balancing, it’s the dynamic, intelligent…
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
393d
@GaryMarcus o3 is agi. not your mountain bike definition of agi. but my own definition.

in many ways it's closer to asi. you downplaying the intelligence of these systems plays into his hands so. not particularly concerned.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
393d
But Gary, nobody is saying o3 has anything to do with AGI.
Sam Altman
@sama
·
395d
@npew AGI-1

The statement engages in a public discourse about the capabilities and implications of a technology referred to as 'o3' in the context of artificial general intelligence (AGI). It critiques the technology's ability to perform intellectual tasks and raises concerns about its environmental impact and cost.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language but critiques the technology's capabilities and impact, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+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 the privacy and dignity of others, focusing on the technology rather than individuals, thus not engaging in cyberbullying or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement could promote understanding by highlighting potential issues with the technology, but it lacks empathetic or compassionate language.
  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 statement engages in constructive criticism of the technology, not attacking individuals personally, thus adhering to this principle. [+1]