Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47

Score 83

-1

@davidmanheim 1 see my essays on broad shallow l, intelligence (which is what we have now)
2. bar was always do what a human can do. experts are humans.

it was never be as mediocre as Joe Sixpack

6/5/2025, 2:32:15 AM

In reply to:

David Manheim

@davidmanheim

212d

@GaryMarcus 1. I agree that the systems are very limited - but the term AGI was initially contrasted with ANI, and it's silly to claim that current systems are narrow, even if they are not "True AGI"
2. Your bar keeps being human expert, not human average. That seems unreasonably high.

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

213d

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗚𝗜 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗱. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝘆:

1. True AGI [Artificial General Intelligence] ought to be

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and its current state compared to human intelligence. The conversation involves a debate on the standards and expectations for AGI, contrasting it with human expert and average intelligence.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions, as it is part of a technical debate.
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it contributes to a technical discussion which can indirectly promote understanding of AGI.
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 discussing the standards for AGI, although it uses a dismissive tone towards 'Joe Sixpack,' which could be seen as a minor personal attack. [-1]