Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 83
5/21/2025, 4:01:31 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
258d
@GaryMarcus @daganshani1 I'm skeptical bad actors gain capabilities so much more quickly than good actors that there's a plausible global catastrophic event, say, >20% dead.
I worry about engineered pandemics, but unless a state actor builds them, they are unlikely to be far worse than natural pandemics.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
258d
@davidmanheim @daganshani1 Nefarious actors doing bad things might cause great harm either directly (e.g. by facilitating bioweapons attacks at new scale) or indirectly (e.g undermining democracy, removing checks and balances and thereby escalating chance of unprecedented conflict).

There is also
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
·
259d
@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
·
259d
@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?

The statement engages in a discussion about the potential risks of disinformation leading to catastrophic events like nuclear war, which is a significant public issue. The tone is speculative and cautionary, aiming to highlight the potential dangers of disinformation attacks by bad actors.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm others but raises awareness about potential risks, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding of the risks associated with disinformation, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+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 a dialogue about the risks of disinformation without resorting to personal attacks, aligning with the principle of constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]
  4. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    By discussing the potential societal risks of disinformation, the statement uses influence to raise awareness about a public concern, aligning with the principle of using influence for societal betterment. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement responsibly uses the platform to discuss a significant public issue, aligning with the principle of upholding free speech with integrity. [+1]