Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
12/24/2024, 4:13:47 PM
X
In reply to:
Leonard Volner
@LeonardVolner
·
397d
@GaryMarcus Let's imagine the o3 results are just fugazi... I still think the seriousness of the discussion on "what would we do if AGI arrived today" is quite timely.

We should be having this discussion.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
397d
An AI CEO I don’t know making basically the same points I made - the tests of o3 were just bad science and also misleading about prior results, exactly as I described in my pinned tweet. Anybody with good judgement and integrity can see that.

People whining about my alleged bias…
Mahesh Sathiamoorthy
@madiator
·
398d
People are panicking with O3 doing really well on ARC-AGI, so wanted to share some perspectives.

1. OpenAI trained on 75% of the training set of ARC-AGI. On X there has been a lot of discussion around this, but wanted to share what i think. So training on train set is fine by ML…

The statement is part of a broader conversation about the validity of AI testing results and the implications of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). It engages with public concerns about AI development and the integrity of scientific testing, thus constituting public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but questions the truthfulness of a premise, which can be seen as a neutral stance.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it is more focused on questioning the validity of a premise.
  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 by questioning a premise without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]