Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
5/18/2025, 1:46:12 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
249d
@XRobservatory How about this - we don't need to push to do anything substantive about banning more risky models until LLMs can generate accurate clocks.

...can we get started now?
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
249d
@GaryMarcus Also, the most recent models are able to do this just fine.
Existential Risk Observatory ⏸
@XRobservatory
·
249d
Everyone always said AI was going to be spiky: being great at some things humans are bad at, while being bad at other things humans are good at. Repeating the latter is not an argument.

What we should do instead is raise awareness and implement timeline-independent regulation!
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
249d
So, let me get this straight, a bunch of LLMs that don’t understand clocks and time zones (to say nothing of chess boards and the rules of chess) are going to kill us all before the end of the decade?

I am all for studying AI safety but can we please decouple it from ludicrous

The conversation involves a discussion on AI capabilities, particularly focusing on the ability of language models to perform tasks like generating accurate clocks. The tone is somewhat skeptical and humorous, questioning the urgency and seriousness of AI risks based on current model limitations.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is part of a constructive dialogue about AI capabilities. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by questioning assumptions about AI risks, encouraging a more nuanced view. [+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, questioning the urgency of AI risk without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]