Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
5/9/2025, 6:03:24 PM
X
In reply to:
Julie Fredrickson
@AlmostMedia
·
58d
@GaryMarcus His reputation as someone who consistently says what he believes his audience wants to hear was not gained accidentally. Perhaps one of the greatest mirroring geniuses our species has ever produced
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
58d
@AlmostMedia here:
ControlAI
@ai_ctrl
·
58d
@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:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
58d
@AlmostMedia Look at the transcript in the moments before he said this
Yanco
@the_yanco
·
58d
@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.
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.

The statement is part of a broader discussion about a public figure's statements and actions regarding AI technology and its potential risks. It references an essay and upcoming books, suggesting a deeper analysis or critique of the individual's behavior and public statements. The conversation involves criticism of perceived inconsistencies in the public figure's statements about AI risks, which is a matter of public concern.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but is part of a critical discourse about public statements on AI risks.
  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 includes strong language that could be seen as disrespectful. [-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 criticism but lacks constructive dialogue, focusing instead on perceived inconsistencies. [-1]