Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
4/30/2025, 2:25:16 PM
X
In reply to:
Max Kesin
@nlpnyc
·
252d
@GaryMarcus From actual empirical experience, because I use it pretty much every day: "a good and increasing amount", including debugging issues that are niche & tricky and would take me a long time to figure out. Don't see 50% mark as crazy at all, it's probably more than 80% for me already
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
252d
@nlpnyc Yes, but how much of it is DEBUGGED (“fixing issues”) by AI.

see https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/… and MSFT study there
Max Kesin
@nlpnyc
·
252d
@GaryMarcus https://fortune.com/2024/10/30/g…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
252d
I call bullshit. But nobody will ever hold Zuck (or Dwarkesh) responsible, if this is turns out to be wrong like so many previous overhyped predictions.
Haider.
@slow_developer
·
253d
Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg:

"within 12-18 months, most of the code is written by AI"

It won’t just be autocomplete.

AI agents will set goals, run tests, find problems, and write better code than top engineers.

The statement questions the credibility of an anecdote regarding Microsoft's empirical study on AI debugging capabilities. It engages in public discourse by addressing the reliability of AI in software development, a significant public issue. The tone is skeptical, seeking clarification or evidence.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm; it seeks clarification.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by questioning the validity of the anecdote, encouraging evidence-based discussion. [+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 anecdote without personal attacks. [+1]