Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 115
6/15/2025, 3:26:30 PM
X
In reply to:
Ryan Greenblatt
@RyanPGreenblatt
·
50d
@GaryMarcus Also, I think the term doomer is pejorative. Maybe say "people worried about near term AI x-risk" or name people?
Ryan Greenblatt
@RyanPGreenblatt
·
50d
@GaryMarcus Sure, listing things that would cause me to extend my timelines:

- Progress on completing longer (in human equivalent duration) software engineering tasks slows down either in benchmarks or possibly in real world usefulness. Or generally progress on software engineering/
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
50d
1. What would convince me to shorten my AGI timelines? robust, principled solutions to things like hallucinations and stupid errors.

2. What would convince doomers to extend their timelines? As far as I can tell, nothing. (Prove me wrong?)
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
50d
When you can solve this problem (& related problems of hallucination and poor planning, etc) maybe you can get to AGI quickly.

But I see no robust solution to any of these problems on the immediate horizon.

If you project AGI soon, and have no solution to these problems, you

The statement is part of a discussion on AI risk and terminology. It critiques the suggestion of naming individuals as an alternative to using the term 'doomer,' describing it as 'too cumbersome and too inside baseball,' indicating it may be too complex or niche for general understanding. The tone is critical but open to further suggestions, aiming for clarity and inclusivity in discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is part of a constructive dialogue. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by seeking clearer terminology. [+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.
    Engages in constructive criticism without personal attacks. [+1]