Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
Yanco
@the_yanco
·
59d
@ai_ctrl @sama He tried to avoid it even in his 1st hearing, it was @GaryMarcus who "prompted" him to actually say that out loud.

Altman is a snake, and deserves lifetime in jail.
5/9/2025, 5:11:38 PM
X
In reply to:
Julie Fredrickson
@AlmostMedia
·
58d
@GaryMarcus I do not
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
58d
@AlmostMedia Do you remember what I had to say to get him to come clean?
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 involves a critique of a public figure's statements on AI safety, focusing on perceived inconsistencies and motivations. The tone is critical and somewhat accusatory, particularly in the use of terms like 'snake' and calls for imprisonment.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement partially violates the principle of doing no harm by using harsh language that could be considered harmful. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement violates the principle of respecting privacy and dignity by engaging in personal attacks. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, focusing instead on criticism without constructive dialogue. [-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 statement violates the principle of engaging in constructive criticism by resorting to personal attacks rather than addressing the issues substantively. [-2]