Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 115
6/15/2025, 2:22:44 PM
X
In reply to:
Alex Alarga ⏹️
@AlexAlarga
·
34d
@GaryMarcus @liron That's because superintelligence does not seem likely to you.☑️

Like a destruction of my town seemed not likely to my family not because we thought Putin CAN'T, but because we were sure our Security Guarantors would never allow a full invasion.

Superintelligence must be banned,
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
34d
@AlexAlarga 100% think we need AI regulation but per my episode w @liron, extinction does not seem likely to me.
Alex Alarga ⏹️
@AlexAlarga
·
34d
@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 is part of a broader discussion on the potential risks and regulation of artificial intelligence, specifically superintelligence. The tone is assertive, aiming to clarify the speaker's stance on the likelihood of superintelligence and the need for improved alignment strategies. The intent is to contribute to the debate on AI regulation 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 constructive topic, thus adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+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 position on superintelligence and the need for alignment, contributing to a more informed 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 addressing the topic directly without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  4. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    By discussing the need for improved alignment in AI, the statement uses influence to advocate for societal betterment through safer AI development. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech principles by responsibly contributing to the public discourse on AI safety and regulation. [+1]