Gary Marcus

Rank 20 of 47
|
Score 56
1/26/2025, 7:02:49 PM
X
In reply to:
Robert Maciejko
@4Maciejko
·
155d
@IntuitMachine @GaryMarcus It is our money. When the economy lacks economic surplus, we all suffer.

Cyberattacks have surged more than 10x since Meta open-sourced LLaMA.

Zuckerberg’s self-serving decisions create significant negative externalities that society ends up paying for.
Carlos E. Perez
@IntuitMachine
·
155d
@4Maciejko @GaryMarcus Does it matter, it's not our money?! If firms want to invest in a speculative technology venture, then that's their risk and not yours! If that investment benefits the whole (i.e, opensource) then that's good for everyone.
Robert Maciejko
@4Maciejko
·
155d
@GaryMarcus Some solid points here, Gary, but I think you buried the real story. Meta open-sourcing Llama may have been the nail in the coffin for US AI leadership. Zuckerberg’s move likely wiped out trillions in potential economic value for the US. The most urgent issue 🚨? He’s selfishly…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
155d
The race for "AI Supremacy" is over — at least for now.

And the US didn’t win.

Weekend long read on what all that means, politically & technically.

• What does this mean for OpenAI, StarGate & Nvidia?
• How did China manage to catch up so quickly?
• Is this race a good…

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the economic and societal impacts of open-sourcing AI technology, specifically LLaMA by Meta. It questions the financial implications and seeks data to support claims about cyberattacks and economic consequences.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement seeks data to substantiate claims, which aligns with responsible discourse and avoids harm by ensuring accuracy. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By requesting data, the statement promotes understanding and informed discussion. [+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 dialogue by asking for evidence, rather than making unsupported claims. [+1]