Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47

|

Score 99

+2

@edanm @shaunralston 1. They still require an unknown number of humans in the background for remote operations
2. They allegedly require enormously detailed, specialized maps; new cities require an enormous amount of city-specific prep
3. They are demos in the sense that you can’t just drop them in a

4/19/2025, 1:08:05 PM

In reply to:

Edan Maor

@edanm

·

34d

@GaryMarcus @shaunralston Aren't driverless cars operating in production in some cities? While it's definitely not mass adoption, I also don't think it's fair to call it just a demo.

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

·

35d

@shaunralston Also we have made progress on driverless cars for 40 years but they are still demos.

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

·

35d

@shaunralston Which of these predictions was wrong, remind me?

Shaun Ralston

@shaunralston

·

35d

@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

·

35d

👇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_

·

35d

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 critiques the current state of driverless car technology, highlighting the need for human intervention, specialized mapping, and city-specific preparation. It engages in a discussion about the progress and limitations of autonomous vehicles, contributing to a broader debate on technological advancements.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not cause harm and focuses on factual observations about technology.
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
It promotes understanding by providing specific reasons for the limitations of driverless cars. [+1]
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 without personal attacks, focusing on the technology rather than individuals. [+1]