Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
12/23/2024, 5:07:31 PM
X
In reply to:
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
396d
@GaryMarcus This is why you're called a goalposts mover. You called this an example of ppl claiming o3 is agi and have now moved the goalposts that this is an example of a pro agi general insinuation from a vague unfalsifiable personal opinion and that somehow that's what you meant
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
396d
@brhydon IMHO it is part of a repeated strategy of his to cultivate expectations of near-term AGI. I don’t think it is “a mistake”to think that.

E.g. right after DALL-E 2 he said “AGI is going to be wild”, implying FOMO etc.

Then he “joked” that AGI has been achieved internally.…
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
396d
@GaryMarcus So now that you are aware of your mistake, you will be retracting then I assume. Or are you going to instead promote misinformation due to your own personal unhedged speculation?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
396d
@brhydon IMHO it’s part of a consistent strategy in which Sam jokes about AGI’s imminence around the time of new releases. But yes the literal meaning is not about o3.
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
396d
@GaryMarcus This first tweet quite *literally* has nothing to do with o3.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
396d
But Gary, nobody is saying o3 has anything to do with AGI.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) and its portrayal by public figures. The conversation involves a critique of how AGI is being discussed and the implications of such discussions.

  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 debate that could potentially lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to clarify a point in the discussion, which can promote understanding, but the tone is somewhat defensive and may not fully foster empathy or compassion.
  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 engages in dialogue and addresses a disagreement, but it is somewhat defensive and could be seen as a personal attack, which slightly violates the principle of constructive criticism. [-1]
  4. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement acknowledges the need to clarify a point, which aligns with the principle of acknowledging and correcting mistakes. [+1]