Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 98
6/15/2025, 3:42:30 PM
X
In reply to:
Ryan Greenblatt
@RyanPGreenblatt
·
61d
@GaryMarcus Fortunately from my perspective, this is already false.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
61d
@RyanPGreenblatt “the majority of prominent people in X risk”
Ryan Greenblatt
@RyanPGreenblatt
·
61d
@GaryMarcus I agree it's pretty likely that many/some people will say this, but you said something stronger than "many people will keep saying this".
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
61d
@RyanPGreenblatt my guess btw is that many people will keep saying AGI is two years away every year from now until when it is actually achieved, literally no matter what happens.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
61d
@RyanPGreenblatt but wait, you aren’t really going to slow your timelines that say AGI is fairly like to arrive in next few years until 2032 arrives?
Ryan Greenblatt
@RyanPGreenblatt
·
61d
@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/

The statement and image engage in public discourse by discussing the potential timeline for AI advancements and their implications, referencing Nobel-level capabilities. The conversation reflects differing opinions on AI development timelines and its societal impact.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but raises concerns about AI's rapid advancement, which could have societal implications.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by sharing insights into AI capabilities and timelines, though it may also cause anxiety about future developments. [+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 dialogue reflects a constructive exchange of differing views on AI timelines, without personal attacks. [+1]