Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
12/30/2024, 5:27:33 PM
X
In reply to:
Ethan Mollick
@emollick
ยท
393d
Nice to see concrete terms for a bet between an AI skeptic and someone more optimistic about rapid AI ability gain. Much better to have a bet than vague arguments.

A few of these are very hard challenges, though point 2 is already something demonstrated in the literature.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
ยท
393d
๐—” ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐˜ ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐˜„๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐˜„๐—ถ๐—น๐—น ๐—”๐—œ ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿณ: @Miles_Brundage, formerly of OpenAI, bravely takes a version of the bet I offered @Elonmusk! Proceeds to charity.

Can AI do 8 of these 10 by the end of 2027?

1. Watch a previously unseen mainstreamโ€ฆ

The statement is a question challenging the claim that a certain AI capability has been 'reliably' demonstrated in the literature. It is part of a broader discussion on the future capabilities of AI, which is a public issue.

  1. 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 by questioning the reliability of a claim, which is a valid part of public discourse. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.ย [+1]