Gary Marcus

Rank 16 of 47
|
Score 80
4/16/2025, 8:32:44 PM
X
In reply to:
Ben Pielstick
@BenPielstick
·
70d
@GaryMarcus @tylercowen Seems like progress though? Claude thinks so.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
70d
Tyler Cowen @tylercowen is claiming (without giving a real definition) that o3 is AGI.

I guarantee his claim won’t stand the test of time, and in 5 years people will laugh at the idea that o3 was AGI.

As Mollick (and I) have noted o3 is just not going to be systematically
Ethan Mollick
@emollick
·
70d
Interesting argument from @tylercowen.

Is o3 good enough to be AGI? The counter argument might force us to wait until ASI, because only then will an AI definitively outperform all humans at all tasks. In the meantime we have a Jagged AGI, with subhuman & superhuman abilities.

The statement critiques the progress of driverless cars, suggesting skepticism about technological advancements despite ongoing efforts. It engages in public discourse by addressing the broader issue of technological progress and its practical availability.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm but expresses skepticism about technological progress.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It does not promote understanding or empathy but highlights a perceived gap between progress and practical application. [-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 criticism by questioning the real-world impact of technological advancements. [+1]