Gary Marcus

Rank 16 of 47
|
Score 71
6/16/2025, 2:04:18 PM
X
In reply to:
Leon Lang
@Lang__Leon
·
69d
@GaryMarcus @RyanPGreenblatt Which concrete person speaks like that? I wonder whom you have in mind.
I do think the person you have in mind is relatively rare, especially among people who actually work professionally in the space.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
69d
@RyanPGreenblatt It’s not true of you; it is true of anyone who speaks as if 95% to 100% of the probability distribution is within the next few years.
Ryan Greenblatt
@RyanPGreenblatt
·
69d
@GaryMarcus This is a pretty clear strawman of at least me.

I do think AGI could be here in 2 years though this seems unlikely (~15% depending on the operationalization) and I think there are specific pieces of evidence that would make me put lower/high probability on this: specifically
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
69d
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 and images engage in a discussion about the timeline for the arrival of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), referencing predictions by various experts. This constitutes public discourse as it addresses a significant technological and societal issue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm, as it is a discussion about predictions and opinions on AGI timelines. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by sharing different viewpoints and predictions about AGI, contributing to a broader conversation. [+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, referencing different opinions and predictions without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]