Gary Marcus

Rank 10 of 47
|
Score 125
6/15/2025, 2:00:05 PM
X
In reply to:
Alex Alarga ⏹️
@AlexAlarga
·
33d
@GaryMarcus "Anti-extinctionist", doomer is a crappy term.

Many people laughed at "Putin will invade haha" prior to 24.02
It sucks to be anxious.
It sucks even_more to have your family members killed.
We need regulation and oversight of AI, NOW, whatever we think of capabilities, not ignore
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
34d
You know why it sucks to be a doomer?

Because they have wrapped themselves up in a tizzy by assuming that literally any sign of intelligence might mean that AGI could be here in two years via “fast takeoff”, and by dismissing literally every sign that it might not coming in two

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the need for AI regulation and addressing concerns about AI's potential risks, including extinction. The tone is analytical and seeks to clarify the speaker's position on AI risks, contributing to the broader debate on AI policy and safety.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and focuses on a reasoned argument about AI regulation. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by clarifying the speaker's stance on AI risks, contributing to a more nuanced discussion. [+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 engages in constructive dialogue by responding to another's concerns without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement responsibly uses the platform to discuss AI regulation, a significant public issue. [+1]