Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
5/9/2025, 5:09:17 PM
X
In reply to:
Julie Fredrickson
@AlmostMedia
·
58d
@GaryMarcus Well he thought it would get him regulatory capture he did it. Now that that ship has sailed he doesn’t need Doomers.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
58d
Sam’s not going to speak straight if I am not there in the room to make him do so.

That’s the difference between 2023 and now.
ControlAI
@ai_ctrl
·
59d
In 2023, @sama said the bad case with AI is "lights out for all of us".

Now he tells the US Senate he's "cautious" and neglects to mention the extinction threat that he himself has warned of.

The conversation critiques a public figure's statements on AI safety, suggesting inconsistency and possible manipulation for regulatory advantage. It questions the integrity and transparency of the individual's communication with the Senate.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to hold a public figure accountable, aligning with the principle of doing no harm by promoting transparency. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The conversation respects privacy but could be seen as indirectly critical, potentially bordering on disrespect. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It seeks to promote understanding of the public figure's stance on AI safety, aligning with promoting empathy and compassion. [+1]
  4. 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 dialogue engages in constructive criticism, avoiding personal attacks and focusing on the issue at hand. [+1]