Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
6/1/2025, 6:03:46 AM
X
In reply to:
Chris
@chatgpt21
·
229d
@GaryMarcus I’ll start reading them asap (: do you leave a plan for how you think we can get to AGI? also everyone calls you a doomer but even you believe we will hit it within 20 years right? Just not with LLMS
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
229d
@chatgpt21 Why haven’t you read The Algebraic Mind and the Next Decade in AI?
Chris
@chatgpt21
·
229d
@GaryMarcus Gary I’ll ask you this everyday. You’re a smart man why haven’t you given any new ideas so we can reach AGI more effectively ?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
229d
Absurd. What does most jobs will be replaced “soon” mean? Certainly not this decade.

Even Dario only said most entry level white collars jobs were threatened, not most jobs, period. No carpenter, plumber, nurse, housekeeper, or mechanic is threatened at all this decade. No
Chubby♨️
@kimmonismus
·
230d
TIMES: Most people will lose their job soon

"Among insiders at the top AI companies, it’s the near-consensus opinion that the day of most people’s technological unemployment, where they lose their jobs to AI, will arrive soon.

AGI is coming for every part of the labor market.

The statement is a defensive response to being labeled a 'doomer' and emphasizes the importance of understanding the speaker's work before making judgments. It suggests that critics are not fully informed and encourages them to read specific recommendations to gain a better understanding.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to clarify misconceptions, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm, but the use of 'intellectually lazy' could be seen as slightly confrontational. [+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 respects privacy but could be seen as dismissive, which might not fully uphold the dignity of others.
  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 form of constructive criticism by encouraging others to read and understand the speaker's work, but the language could be more diplomatic. [+1]