Gary Marcus

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 74
4/17/2025, 2:53:37 AM
X
In reply to:
Liron Shapira
@liron
·
2d
@GaryMarcus @rao2z Sure. Here I was just trying to clarify what your preferred concept of “agency” is by asking if this arguably absurd case still counts (or maybe it even easily counts in your view).

Anyway we gotta talk through these concepts on Doom Debates! Your perspective is interesting.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
2d
@liron @rao2z Look, there are two or three longstanding discussions that are concerned with the issue I am focusing on: one in psychology (when do humans develop independent agency), one in philosophy (around free will etc) and another around safety (can machines defy their masters). You can
Liron Shapira
@liron
·
2d
@GaryMarcus @rao2z Ok so we’re allowed to have a scenario where AI can derive arbitrarily large subgoals and implement them, potentially upending civilization as we know it, but it doesn’t count as “agency” because 5 years ago a human said “beat Elon to Mars”?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
2d
@liron @rao2z Not in the sense of having its own goals (though it would be very impressive in its own right).
Liron Shapira
@liron
·
2d
@GaryMarcus @rao2z How big does the externally-supplied goal have to be before the sub goals are sufficiently independent/agentic for you? E.g. if the goal is beat Elon to Mars and the AI doesn’t require any more instructions for 5 years and succeeds, that’s still not agentic?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
2d
@liron @rao2z Those are orthogonal dimensions. Following instructions vs coming up with its own strategic goals independent of instructions.

The statement 'May might work!' is a logistical response to a conversation about scheduling a discussion on the concept of 'agency' in AI. The conversation involves a substantive engagement with public issues related to AI, philosophy, and psychology, making it part of public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm as it is a neutral logistical response.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not directly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it is part of a broader conversation that aims to clarify complex concepts.
  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 is constructive and does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech and uses the platform responsibly by contributing to a meaningful dialogue. [+1]