Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
5/15/2025, 4:20:25 PM
X
In reply to:
Hermopolis Prime 🇳🇿
@HermopolisPrime
·
227d
@liron @GaryMarcus Very well argued. Particularly good was trying to put Gary on the spot with the obituary example generated by o3 - here Gary did find a few hallucinations and the AIs writing wasn't quite good enough, but it was still impressive. The Maps examples were ambiguous really.
Liron Shapira
@liron
·
227d
GARY MARCUS ON DOOM DEBATES!!!

Prof. @GaryMarcus is one of the most influential voices in AI.

He claims P(Doom) < 1% because humanity's “immune system” is good at neutralizing threats before the whole population perishes.

We cover:
* Gary's AI Skepticism
* Kluge
* The 2023

The statement engages in a discussion about AI capabilities, specifically addressing errors in AI-generated content. It critiques the ambiguity of map examples and references a detailed critique by Gary Marcus. The tone is critical and aims to clarify perceived inaccuracies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to correct perceived errors, aligning with the principle of doing no harm by seeking accuracy. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by addressing specific examples of AI errors, though it could be more constructive in tone. [+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 pointing out specific issues, but the tone could be perceived as dismissive.