Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
5/21/2025, 3:23:41 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
258d
@GaryMarcus @daganshani1 Is your view that disaster is very likely because human civilization is very precarious, and it therefore won't take an intelligent adversary to cause a large scale disaster? Or that a nefarious actor would intentionally cause the death of more people than any previous event?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
258d
@davidmanheim @daganshani1 Eg genai used for deep fakes/disinformation might lead to accidental war which would be a catastrophe, but some fraction of the species would likely survive.

Actually extinction even from nuclear war is unlikely (not impossible) given our geographic and genetic diversity,
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
258d
@daganshani1 @GaryMarcus At some point I should talk to Gary about why I think that the types of catastrophe he's concerned about have a very high probability of leading to extinction.

In short, I don't think humanity needs to face malicious superhuman AI to end up in a forced mate that gets played out.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
258d
@daganshani1 @GaryMarcus It doesn't take AGI for humanity to screw this up, given how poorly we're doing.

As I told Eliezer several years ago, I agree that we don't know how to survive ASI - but wouldn't it be even more embarrassing for humanity to manage to kill ourselves off before then?
Dagan Shani
@daganshani1
·
258d
@GaryMarcus Before, whenever I needed to ease my anxiety about the catastrophic risk of AI, I would come to your account to see you debunk claims of AGI approaching, I guess these days are over now🥲
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
258d
ChatGPT is not AGI but it was a dress rehearsal - to see if we would be able to stop a runaway train if it were to arrive.

Humanity failed that dress rehearsal.

We didn’t stop the train. We gave more money and power to the train manufacturers, and told them, don’t worry about

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the potential risks posed by nefarious actors, particularly in the context of bioweapons and threats to democracy. It engages with public concerns about security, governance, and the potential for large-scale harm, thus constituting public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement highlights potential harms caused by nefarious actors, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm by raising awareness of these risks. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, and respects the privacy and dignity of others. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By discussing potential threats, the statement aims to promote understanding and awareness of serious issues, which can foster empathy and compassion for those affected by such risks. [+1]
  4. 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 is part of a constructive dialogue about potential threats, engaging with others' views without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses the platform to discuss significant societal issues, contributing to the betterment of society by raising awareness. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech principles and uses the platform responsibly to discuss important public concerns. [+1]