Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47

Score 83

Reposted by Gary Marcus

@rajiinio @mmitchell_ai “If we lack the technical & governing facilities to control or measure AI mechanisms which output these harms, then we would be mistaken to believe we have the technical foundation to resolve larger-scale avalanching risks that AI may hypothetically enable.”
—@HeidyKhlaaf

11/5/2023, 6:50:51 PM

The statement and accompanying image engage in public discourse by addressing the governance and regulation of AI, comparing it to nuclear safety. It critiques the inconsistency in acknowledging AI risks while dismissing necessary regulations.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement strives to do no harm by highlighting potential risks and advocating for responsible regulation. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
It promotes understanding by discussing the need for consistent regulatory approaches to 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 of current regulatory practices without personal attacks. [+1]