Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/15/2025, 5:49:14 AM
X
In reply to:
Guy Herbert
@guy_herbert
·
23d
@GaryMarcus The two go together. Marginal improvement can radically alter applicability. My point is, that it doesn't work now is not a very good guide to when it might.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
23d
@guy_herbert this wasn’t a question about adoption. it was a question about capabilities.
Guy Herbert
@guy_herbert
·
23d
@GaryMarcus Hm. Tech adoption tends to be more exponential than linear. One of my ex-clients was a futurist who wrote a book predicting that eventually 200-400M people might have internet access. We'd already reached that point by the time it was published.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
23d
what would you expect autonomous driving to look like two years before full level-5 self driving was achieved?

my guess is that you would have level-4 self driving with relatively little geofencing in most major cities by then? (we aren’t close to that)
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
23d
What would you expect AI to look like 2 years before we achieved AGI? What would you expect AI be able to do at AGI-2? not be able to do then? what would those final two years of AGI development look like?

i give one possible answer below.

The statement is part of a broader discussion on AI capabilities and predictions about technological advancements, which constitutes public discourse. The tone is dismissive, suggesting that the previous comment lacks predictive value.

  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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It dismisses the previous comment without providing a reasoned argument or alternative perspective, which could be seen as a minor violation of engaging in constructive dialogue. [-1]