Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 83
5/21/2025, 4:03:02 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
258d
@GaryMarcus @daganshani1 And I don't think that society is so fragile today, and while I worry about the acceleration of technology (as in my recent post, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/… ) and tech fragility (as in my paper, https://www.sciencedirect.com/sc…,) I don't think AI on its own is the issue.
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.

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the fragility of the Western system in the context of global alliances and rights, contributing to a broader discussion on societal stability and systemic risks.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm others but uses strong language to emphasize perceived fragility, which could be seen as alarmist.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it focuses on a negative assessment without offering solutions or deeper insights. [-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 does not engage in personal attacks but rather critiques a system, aligning with constructive dialogue principles. [+1]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement uses free speech to critique societal structures, which is a responsible use of the platform, though it could be more balanced. [+1]