Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47

Score 83

@toyancsayan Also see my doom debate with @liron - I argued that AI is likely NOT literally a highly probable existential threat.

5/24/2025, 2:41:01 PM

In reply to:

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

254d

@toyancsayan I have addressed this dozens of times.

Entrusting stupid systems with power is stupid.

Toyanç

@toyancsayan

254d

@GaryMarcus Ah yes, Gary now has Schrödinger’s AI:
Too dumb to draw a clock,
yet too dangerous to be left unaligned in a closed system.

You can’t keep oscillating between “lol it’s dumb” and “it’s an existential threat.”
This kind of performative contradiction makes people underestimate

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

254d

⚠️⚠️⚠️
AI Safety Alert:

System prompts and RL don’t work.

Claude’s system prompt literally says

“Claude does not provide information that could be used to make chemical or biological or nuclear weapons.”

But as described below, Claude 4 Opus can easily be coaxed into doing

Adam Gleave

@ARGleave

254d

My colleague @irobotmckenzie spent six hours red-teaming Claude 4 Opus, and easily bypassed safeguards designed to block WMD development. Claude gave >15 pages of non-redundant instructions for sarin gas, describing all key steps in the manufacturing process.

The statement engages in a debate about the potential existential threat posed by AI, specifically addressing concerns about AI safety and the ability of AI systems to be manipulated into providing dangerous information. The tone is critical and aims to clarify the perceived contradiction in the argument about AI's capabilities and threats.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement attempts to clarify misconceptions about AI's threat level, which can contribute to a more informed public understanding, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
By engaging in a debate about AI safety, the statement promotes understanding and dialogue about a significant public concern, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding. [+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 by addressing perceived contradictions in the argument about AI's threat level, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue. [+1]