Gary Marcus

Rank 9 of 47
|
Score 113
1/6/2025, 1:30:30 PM
X
In reply to:
Dylan HadfieldMenell
@dhadfieldmenell
·
198d
@GaryMarcus Gary, a long thread subtweeting that doesn’t engage my primary point isn’t helpful either.

There’s uncertainty. Even if you’re confident, the field isn’t. When you speak in public, for better or worse you represent us.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
198d
@dhadfieldmenell 1. I was writing a satire of Sam’s incredibly over the top and extreme and unwarranted confidence that the already knows how to build AGI.
2. your pearl-clutching is therefore asymmetric and biased, since it was directed almost entirely to me while giving him a free pass.
3. my…
Dylan HadfieldMenell
@dhadfieldmenell
·
199d
@GaryMarcus I’m calling this out because I think we, as public intellectuals, can do better. We can be forthright about what troubles us while showing we’re still learning. Your insights are valuable; I just want to see them land in a way that fosters real understanding. After all, we both…
Dylan HadfieldMenell
@dhadfieldmenell
·
199d
@GaryMarcus We’re both on the same team in wanting more honesty and humility in public discussions about AI. Let’s model the kind of balanced, rigorous skepticism we hope others will adopt. When we speak with such strong conviction, it risks overshadowing the nuance and inviting pushback…
Dylan HadfieldMenell
@dhadfieldmenell
·
199d
@GaryMarcus Gary, I appreciate how seriously you take AI risks, and I share many of your concerns about hype and misinformation. That said, I’m worried our message can get lost when our tone feels dismissive or overly certain—especially in a field with so much uncertainty
Dylan HadfieldMenell
@dhadfieldmenell
·
199d
@GaryMarcus I’m not here to argue the facts. I just think your confidence is misleading. I don’t think it’s helpful to the conversation.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of AI and the communication style of public intellectuals. It reflects a disagreement on how to present arguments and engage in discussions about AI, a significant 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 indicates a refusal to engage further due to perceived neglect of points made, which suggests a breakdown in constructive dialogue. It does not engage in personal attacks but shows a reluctance to continue the conversation, which could be seen as a minor violation of the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue. [-1]