Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
12/30/2024, 10:54:57 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
393d
@emollick It’s not just summaries: “Watch a previously unseen mainstream movie (without reading reviews etc) and be able to follow plot twists and know when to laugh, and be able to summarize it without giving away any spoilers or making up anything that didn’t actually happen, and be able…
Ethan Mollick
@emollick
·
393d
@GaryMarcus Not sure what your reliability standard is, though…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
394d
@emollick 2: *reliably*? Where?
Ethan Mollick
@emollick
·
394d
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
·
394d
𝗔 𝗯𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗔𝗜 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟳: @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 mainstream…

The statement engages in a technical discussion about AI capabilities, specifically regarding the reliability of AI-generated summaries compared to human annotations. It critiques a study's findings, suggesting skepticism about AI's current abilities in this area.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and contributes to a technical discussion, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. 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 AI summaries, which is a valid part of academic and technical discourse. [+1]