Gary Marcus

Rank 20 of 47
|
Score 60
5/27/2025, 7:17:10 PM
X
In reply to:
Dan Shipper 📧
@danshipper
·
12d
@GaryMarcus @Kasparov63 Rats! Gotcha journalists at it again.

You would never do that when evaluating AI responses
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
12d
@danshipper @Kasparov63 Dude, I am not playing with you again. Below is a screenshot o of what I saw on X.

I assumed the input was what you said it was.

Now I feel like you were playing gotcha.

Bye.
Dan Shipper 📧
@danshipper
·
12d
@GaryMarcus @Kasparov63 “I may have jumped to conclusions too quickly” is another alternative!
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
12d
@danshipper @Kasparov63 1. true, i may have been mislead by your tweet about it
2. i would curious to see the full transcript
Dan Shipper 📧
@danshipper
·
12d
@GaryMarcus @Kasparov63 it did. i had to modify the prompt a bunch for it not to
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
12d
@danshipper @Kasparov63 Perhaps it should have said, “that’s science fiction but here are some things one could imagine.”

The statement reflects a defensive tone and addresses a misunderstanding or miscommunication in a public discussion about AI evaluation. The speaker clarifies their position and expresses a lack of trust moving forward.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but reflects a defensive stance, which may not promote a positive dialogue.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy but could be seen as dismissive, potentially affecting the dignity of others involved. [-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 constructive dialogue and instead focuses on personal mistrust, which could hinder understanding. [-1]