Gary Marcus

Rank 25 of 47
|
Score 40
1/13/2025, 9:51:57 PM
X
In reply to:
neil turkewitz
@neilturkewitz
·
24d
And @sama has previously expressed to Congress his belief that artists should be able to determine whether, and on what terms, their works may be used for training. This isn’t dissonance—it’s lying. Was Sam under oath when he testified before Congress?
Karla Ortiz
@kortizart
·
24d
Make no mistake, GenAi companies will try and dismantle all protections that creatives have over their work in the US too. They KNOW they cant win lawsuits because they broke the law. But they can try and change the laws.

Folks, prepare yourselves to fight this tooth and nail.
neil turkewitz
@neilturkewitz
·
36d
“We think creators deserve control over how their creations are used…Second, I think that we need to figure out new ways with this new technology that creators can win, succeed, [and] have a vibrant life. And I’m optimistic that this will present it.”
—@sama to the Senate 5/2023

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the issue of AI regulation and copyright, specifically questioning the truthfulness of a public figure's testimony before Congress. It implies a discrepancy between public statements and actions regarding artists' rights and AI training.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement accuses someone of lying, which could be harmful if not substantiated. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It questions the integrity of a public figure, potentially affecting their dignity, but does not engage in hate speech. [-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 does not engage in constructive dialogue and instead makes a direct accusation. [-1]