Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 82
1/19/2025, 7:53:56 PM
X
In reply to:
Anjiólina Nakaya
@neuroAnjiolina
·
105d
@davetroy @GaryMarcus See this "optimism" by Grimes on immortality which actually means extinction of humanity.
Anjiólina Nakaya
@neuroAnjiolina
·
123d
wth is this. So there are people like Grimes who want to accelerate AI, because they believe it will save our species but if it becomes like a god, they will submit to it and allow humans to go extinct.

I am now thinking that Grimes and Elon actually deserved each other.
Dave Troy
@davetroy
·
105d
@GaryMarcus Agree, and generally of the opinion that tech should be a pro-social force that doesn’t inherently involve the formation of an enemy out-group. If it’s really good, it brings everyone benefits. Pursue the really good.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
105d
Feel the same.
Dr. Émile P. Torres
@xriskology
·
106d
E/acc makes me more confident in the "doomsday" or "self-destruct" explanation of the Fermi paradox. Their recklessness (different from optimism) is not compatible with the survival of civilization. In this sense, they are best described as an anti-civilizational force.

The statement questions the ethics of prioritizing AI over human existence, reflecting concerns about technological advancement and its impact on humanity. It challenges the idea of sacrificing human life for AI's longevity, engaging in a broader debate about technology's role in society.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement raises ethical concerns about prioritizing AI over human life, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by questioning the implications of AI on humanity, encouraging reflection on technological ethics. [+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 critiques the idea without personal attacks, focusing on the ethical implications rather than individuals. [+1]