Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47

Score 83

Reposted by Gary Marcus

@paulg Thanks for engaging, @paulg. I often enjoy your comments but I think that this one is an importantly erroneous oversimplification of ChatGPT’s reality:

1. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn’t. It is fundamentally erratic, yet presents nearly all answers with confidence —

5/14/2025, 12:29:38 PM

The statement critiques the reliability of ChatGPT, suggesting it is erratic despite presenting answers confidently. It engages in public discourse by addressing the functionality and perception of AI technology.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement aims to highlight potential issues with ChatGPT, which could be seen as striving to do no harm by informing others of its limitations. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
By pointing out the erratic nature of ChatGPT, the statement could promote understanding of its limitations, fostering a more informed discussion about AI. [+1]
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 without resorting to personal attacks, focusing on the technology rather than individuals. [+1]