Gary Marcus

Rank 10 of 47
|
Score 127
1/6/2025, 1:44:28 PM
X
In reply to:
Dylan HadfieldMenell
@dhadfieldmenell
·
196d
@GaryMarcus Oh, I haven’t been able to read it in detail yet. My primary response was just that we need to calm down a bit
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
196d
@dhadfieldmenell Did you reply to the new blog from Sam and he is claims re AGI and ASI? Where?
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.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the responsible communication of AI safety and risk, engaging in a dialogue about maintaining standards in public expert discussions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and encourages informed discussion, aligning with the principle. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by urging the other party to read the material before continuing the discussion, aligning with the principle. [+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 suggesting the other party read the material to have a more informed discussion, aligning with the principle. [+1]