Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47

|

Score 83

-1

@DreamsOfTaos @edzitron he is regularly systematically and personally insulting people who have different views. it’s just unprofessional. he is also completely not mentioning very large constituencies of professionals who take extremely different perspectives.

6/20/2025, 9:50:58 PM

In reply to:

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

·

209d

@DreamsOfTaos @edzitron he has gotten so extreme i think it is an entirely fair question

Dreams

@DreamsOfTaos

·

209d

@GaryMarcus "Who's paying you?" is rarely effective, and is especially unnecessary with Kevin. His actions are fully explainable by who's already paying him, and rational self interest. The NYT's motives are more perplexing, e.g , an @edzitron in this bum's stead would bring much more heat.

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

·

209d

Is this man getting paid directly by the GenAI industry, or does he just have his new AGI book to shill?

sometimes it seems like absolutely everything he writes is rhetoric to defend the AI industry and undermine skeptics by oversimplified strawperson attacks.

shame on the

Kevin Roose

@kevinroose

·

209d

I used to think the "fancy autocomplete" stuff was just goofy cope from NLP dead-enders, but maybe it's actually more calculated than that. There's clearly a market for people who want to be told that AI is a fad and that they don't need to worry about it.

The statement criticizes an individual for being unprofessional and not acknowledging diverse perspectives in a public debate about AI. It suggests a lack of respect for differing views and highlights the importance of including various professional opinions.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement suggests harm by accusing someone of being systematically insulting, which could be seen as a violation of respectful discourse. [-1]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
It calls out behavior that may not respect the dignity of others, implying a lack of professionalism. [-1]
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 criticism but does not resort to personal attacks, focusing instead on the behavior and its impact on discourse. [+1]