Gary Marcus

Rank 25 of 47
|
Score 40
1/19/2025, 5:59:44 PM
X
In reply to:
shaperotator (e/λ)
@circlerotator
·
18d
@GaryMarcus @rhydhimma 1) was already true when you made this prediction
2) massive advance: o1/o3 proved this not to be true, arc was solved years before anyone expected it
3) price wars: O1 pro costs more than anything before. Doesn’t seem like a price war.
4) moat: Very few players have video…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
18d
@circlerotator @rhydhimma Sir, tell me one thing I was wrong about other then winograd schemas, the election and OpenAI valuation . Vast majority of predictions have been correct and are well-documented in my 2025 predictions essay at substack.
shaperotator (e/λ)
@circlerotator
·
18d
@rhydhimma @GaryMarcus He is obviously implying Sam is lying and the government is deluded. Stop being dense.

Gary is someone who’s constantly wrong about AI but pretends he’s some Nostradamus
Rhydhimma (sci/acc)
@rhydhimma
·
18d
@circlerotator @GaryMarcus I don't think Sam or the Government is lying. That's not what Gary is saying either.

The meeting can be an important meeting about the next generation of AI approach.

But hyping it to be about some new discovery is just too much.

Even Sam thinks ASI is at least a year away.
shaperotator (e/λ)
@circlerotator
·
18d
@rhydhimma @GaryMarcus I mean the assumption is that the government and Sam Altman are both lying or deluded right?
Rhydhimma (sci/acc)
@rhydhimma
·
18d
@circlerotator @GaryMarcus Tell me why he is wrong with logic. Not emotion.

Btw, he is saying the same things that Sam, Elon, Dennis and others are saying.

The statement is part of a public discourse on AI predictions and involves a critique of previous predictions. It addresses issues of accuracy and bias in forecasting technological advancements.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses a critical tone, which may not fully align with striving to do no harm, but it does not appear to be overtly harmful. [-1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it focuses on pointing out perceived errors without constructive dialogue. [-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 criticism but lacks constructive elements, focusing instead on labeling the reply as 'shoddy and biased.' [-1]