Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
1/27/2025, 3:44:38 AM
X
In reply to:
John Fawkes 🇺🇦
@johnfawkes
·
165d
@GaryMarcus @kimmonismus You also would need much longer than that just to know if it worked! In amazed that so many people are just taking this at face value.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
165d
@kimmonismus Any serious scientist would know that you can’t possibly get the lab work done that fast. This is total, complete bullshit.
Chubby♨️
@kimmonismus
·
165d
Longevity is here. And its here to stay.

We have to remember that Dario Amodei is not a hype-guy. He is a serious scientist. His words carry weight.

Doubling the lifespan would probably amount to around 140 years. In 5 years already, mind you!

So where will we be in 10 years'…

The statement 'Shark-jumping moment for Dario' is a critical response to a claim about AI's potential to double human lifespans in five years. It suggests skepticism and implies that the claim is exaggerated or unrealistic.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement is critical but does not appear to cause harm. It challenges the credibility of a claim, which is a common aspect of public discourse.
  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 dismisses the claim without providing a detailed counterargument. [-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 dialogue. It uses a metaphor ('shark-jumping') to imply disbelief, which could be seen as dismissive rather than engaging in a reasoned debate. [-1]