Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
2/13/2025, 8:39:14 PM
X
In reply to:
janon
@janonacct
·
341d
Very lame! by most metrics waymo is working very well relative to human drivers
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
341d
Gary Marcus, 2016: Driverless cars are hard to perfect, because there is an immense number of outlier cases that are hard to handle.

Waymo, 9 years later: gets stuck for 3 min in the middle of the street, because it doesn’t understand steam.
janon
@janonacct
·
341d
Beyond the debate about LLMs, I think Gary is missing something about how booms and busts are a natural process in tech. Sure bio startups became super overvalued in general, but bio progressed a ton. Self-driving cars got super over invested into, but also I can hail a waymo now
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
341d
Wait! 🤯

Do you mean to tell me that a bunch of massively hyped biotech companies haven’t remotely returned on their investments, that the vast majority of people in the world still can’t hail rides in (or buy) genuinely driverless cars, and that GPT-5 still hasn’t arrived,…

The statement critiques the limitations of Waymo's technology, emphasizing the need for detailed mapping and addressing a previous comment's perceived rudeness. It engages in a technical discussion about self-driving cars and their current limitations.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to clarify a technical point, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    By muting the other user for rudeness, the statement attempts to maintain a respectful discourse, aligning with the principle of respecting privacy and dignity. [+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 avoids personal attacks and focuses on the technical argument, aligning with constructive criticism. [+1]