Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
1/2/2025, 5:33:10 AM
X
In reply to:
Timothy B. Lee
@binarybits
·
397d
@GaryMarcus @peterwildeford @Miles_Brundage @eli_lifland I would like to see you write about this in the new year. Waymo has grown 15x in the last 18 months and has a very good safety record. Has their execution in 2024 softened your skepticism?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
397d
@binarybits @peterwildeford @Miles_Brundage @eli_lifland read this too late, alas. my substack gives 25 predictions but only indirectly touches this.
Timothy B. Lee
@binarybits
·
397d
@GaryMarcus @peterwildeford @Miles_Brundage @eli_lifland Number of weekly Waymo trips at the end of 2025. Waymo's cumulative airbag-deployed crash rate through the end of 2025. (You could base this either on their last report in 2025 or the first one in 2026.)
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
397d
Taking requests! I am writing my list of 2025 AI predictions – is there any topic you’d like my take on?

@peterwildeford @Miles_Brundage @eli_lifland

The statement engages in a discussion about the operational challenges and generalizability of Waymo's autonomous vehicle technology, which is a public issue related to technology and urban planning. The tone is analytical and raises questions about the broader applicability of the technology beyond well-mapped areas.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and focuses on raising legitimate concerns, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by highlighting specific challenges and questions about the technology's generalizability, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+1]
  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 constructive criticism by questioning the scalability and reliability of the technology without resorting to personal attacks, adhering to the principle of constructive dialogue. [+1]