Gary Marcus

Rank 21 of 47
|
Score 51
1/26/2025, 10:18:45 PM
X
In reply to:
Robert Maciejko
@4Maciejko
·
156d
@GaryMarcus I discussed with him the honorary degree he got in China last year - he said something like "oh, that's Hong Kong". I have nothing against China per se, but this is an intense global competition. You don't undermine your own side for personal gain.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
156d
@4Maciejko i watched a video (not sure where, about a year ago) where LeCun bragged that he was recognized in the sheets of Shanghai. I kid you not.
Robert Maciejko
@4Maciejko
·
156d
@GaryMarcus This is why I think the Meta angle is central and urgent - Happy to be wrong.
Robert Maciejko
@4Maciejko
·
156d
Did Meta Kill US AI? What’s Next?

Meta’s AI gamble might have just handed China—and others—the keys to the future.

Did Meta kill US AI leadership? Maybe.

But the bigger question is: what happens next?

Read the full story here at the link below👇
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
156d
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 AI competition between the US and China, touching on issues of national interest and corporate influence. The tone is critical and somewhat accusatory, suggesting a betrayal of national interests for personal gain.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement implies harm by accusing someone of undermining their own side for personal gain, which could be seen as harmful. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not respect the privacy and dignity of the individual it accuses, potentially engaging in a form of public shaming. [-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 promote constructive dialogue, as it focuses on personal attacks rather than engaging with the broader issue constructively. [-1]