Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 83
4/19/2025, 1:23:51 AM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
14d
@shaunralston Which of these predictions was wrong, remind me?
Shaun Ralston
@shaunralston
·
14d
@GaryMarcus Gary, I’m all for free speech and a chorus of viewpoints (srsly), but oy gevalt, you’re coming off like a nonstop "kvetcher," especially lately, when you won’t acknowledge the progress we’ve made. We may not be at the finish line, yet we’re miles ahead of where we started, and
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
14d
👇2025 version of Geoff Hinton’s infamous (and wrong) 2016, “we should stop training radiologists now. It's just completely obvious that within five years, deep learning is going to do better than radiologist.” [AFAIK No actual radiologists have yet been replaced, almost a decade
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
14d
Gates is correct: within a decade, up to 80-90% of doctors, teachers, professors, engineers or lawyers will be replaced by AI. The remaining professionals will focus on aiding AI to make discoveries, create new knowledge & to keep it aligned to benefit humans in these fields.

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the progress and challenges of technological advancements, specifically driverless cars, in response to predictions about AI development. It highlights skepticism about the pace of technological progress, drawing a parallel between AI and driverless cars.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and contributes to a broader discussion on technological progress. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by comparing AI advancements to driverless cars, encouraging reflection on technological expectations. [+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 dialogue by questioning the pace of progress without personal attacks. [+1]