Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
ControlAI
@ai_ctrl
·
59d
@sama This isn't even the first time he's dodged the question in the Senate.

Here he is back in 2023 avoiding saying what his worst fear really was, despite @GaryMarcus calling him out and Altman having a second chance to actually answer the question:
5/9/2025, 5:48:09 PM
X
In reply to:
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 statement and conversation involve a critique of a public figure's consistency and transparency regarding AI risks. The tone is critical and suggests a lack of straightforwardness in public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to hold a public figure accountable, which can be seen as striving to do 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 critique respects privacy but questions the dignity of the public figure by implying dishonesty. [-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 by highlighting perceived inconsistencies, though it borders on personal attack.