Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
4/29/2025, 1:07:28 PM
X
In reply to:
dylan matthews 🔸
@dylanmatt
·
260d
@tyler_m_john @GaryMarcus Tyler as a moral philosopher knows this very well but hundreds if not thousands of people have tried to come up with rigorous definitions of things like “kindness” and “fairness” and it turns out to be extremely hard!
Tyler John
@tyler_m_john
·
260d
@GaryMarcus Try hand coding some values for GPT-2-tiny, I suspect you'll pretty quickly hit a wall but if not it would be the breakthrough of the century
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
260d
@tyler_m_john it’s more than a trillion actions but its not a trillion norms. maybe it’s only 100 and we should hand-write some of them, rather than leaving everything entirely to the chance vicissitudes of what is in some training corpus.
Tyler John
@tyler_m_john
·
260d
@GaryMarcus Every decision or speech act bakes in a billion complex, subtle values, about efficiency, honesty, empathy, respect, social norms, empiricism, aesthetics, deference, humility, and on and on. How would you write a set of goals that leads to good norms across a trillion actions?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
260d
@tyler_m_john Why are the values so complicated?

Can’t be hand coded in a LLM but that’s an a LLM issue, not inherent to AI.
Tyler John
@tyler_m_john
·
260d
@GaryMarcus I think that is unfortunately not the case. If you have an AGI you have to decide its goals. It is (and values are) too complicated to hand code them. So you gotta give it something to optimize. Optimizing for human feedback is a natural target and leads straight to this.

The statement engages in a complex discussion about the challenges of defining and encoding values in artificial intelligence systems, particularly in the context of large language models (LLMs). The tone is analytical and critical, expressing skepticism about the feasibility of deriving values from data in AI systems. The intent is to contribute to the debate on AI ethics and the technical difficulties of implementing moral and ethical reasoning in AI.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and maintains a respectful tone, adhering to the principle of doing no harm with words. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by engaging in a thoughtful discussion about the complexities of AI ethics, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+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 of the idea of inducing values from data in AI, without resorting to personal attacks, thus adhering to the principle of constructive dialogue. [+1]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement responsibly uses the platform to discuss important issues related to AI ethics, upholding the principle of free speech and responsible use of influence. [+1]