Gary Marcus

Rank 10 of 47
|
Score 127
1/6/2025, 1:32:57 PM
X
In reply to:
Dylan HadfieldMenell
@dhadfieldmenell
·
196d
@GaryMarcus And if you disagree, that’s your call. But I’ve watched this problem get worse for my entire life. I’m done being silent about it.

Last week, I said the same thing to OpenAI when they falsely claimed that their new approach we a paradigm shift in my field
Dylan HadfieldMenell
@dhadfieldmenell
·
196d
@GaryMarcus You’re welcome to disagree, but public experts being irresponsible about public communication is a big part of why experts have lost public confidence.

I’m just asking you to show some more humility for your ideas when you present them.
Dylan HadfieldMenell
@dhadfieldmenell
·
196d
@GaryMarcus When you started discussing AI safety and risk, I appreciated the engagement. As I said, I think we’re on the same team.

But, if we’re on the same team then it’s my job to maintain standards of discourse. Or, at least, I see it that way
Dylan HadfieldMenell
@dhadfieldmenell
·
196d
@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
·
196d
@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
·
197d
@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…

The statement is part of a broader conversation about the responsibilities of public intellectuals in discussing AI safety and risk. It engages with public discourse by addressing the communication standards and responsibilities of experts in the field of AI, particularly in relation to claims about AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) and ASI (Artificial Superintelligence). The tone is critical but aims to maintain a constructive dialogue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but is part of a critical dialogue about responsible communication.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the dignity of others by focusing on the content of the discourse rather than personal attacks.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding by encouraging responsible communication among experts. [+1]
  4. 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 addressing the need for humility and responsibility in public discourse. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech by engaging in a public dialogue about important issues in AI. [+1]