Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
2/13/2025, 3:46:26 PM
X
In reply to:
Henry de Zoete
@HZoete
·
340d
The CEO of one Chinese AI company presented a slide at a side event that indicated that AI would have self perception in 2027 and consciousness in 2030.
Henry de Zoete
@HZoete
·
340d
Timelines for when we will have AGI, superintelligence, or a “country of geniuses in a datacenter” as @DarioAmodei CEO of Anthropic calls it are getting shorter. The consensus seems to be 2026-27 and 2030 at the latest.
Henry de Zoete
@HZoete
·
340d
I might be biased but the British played a blinder.

Not signing the statement bought vital good will with the Trump admin at little cost.

What the No10 spokesman said about the statement was true. Pro safety people like @tegmark argued that countries shouldn’t sign.
Hugo Gye
@HugoGye
·
342d
UK government confirms it is refusing to sign Paris AI summit declaration.

No10 spokesman: "We felt the declaration didn't provide enough practical clarity on global governance, nor sufficiently address harder questions around national security and the challenge AI poses to it."
Henry de Zoete
@HZoete
·
340d
There was plenty of anti safety rhetoric.

Inevitable given Biden's focus on it.

But crucially and sensibly Vance kept the door open stating in his conclusion: "this doesn't mean, of course, that all concerns about safety go out the window, but focus matters”.

He is right.
Henry de Zoete
@HZoete
·
340d
JD Vance set out a clear and nuanced agenda.

One of the most pro tech speeches I've ever heard while simultaneously firing a shot across the bows of big tech.

And being alive to concerns of workers. 

So soon after the start of an administration it was v impressive.
Vice President JD Vance
@VP
·
342d
This administration will always focus on workers as we develop artificial intelligence technologies.
 
American workers deserve a seat at the table as we develop new policies that will lead to higher wages, safer communities, and more prosperity across our country.
Henry de Zoete
@HZoete
·
340d
But putting on these summits is extremely hard. And easy to pass judgment from the outside and in hindsight.

Now for the US and UK…

The statement critiques a slide predicting AI developments, questioning its scientific basis. It engages in public discourse by addressing the speculative nature of AI timelines.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement dismisses the slide as 'silly' without providing evidence, which could be seen as dismissive rather than constructive, slightly violating the principle of doing no harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks empathy or understanding, as it dismisses the slide without engaging in a deeper discussion, slightly violating the principle of promoting understanding. [-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 could be more constructive by providing reasons or evidence for its critique, slightly violating the principle of engaging in constructive criticism. [-1]