Gary Marcus

Rank 10 of 47
|
Score 123
6/22/2025, 4:51:02 PM
X
In reply to:
George Saoulidis ⚡
@georgecursor
·
26d
@GaryMarcus @NewYorker @Miles_Brundage I disagree on this. I'm running chatgpt on a meme site and it's explaining the meme and understanding the joke. It's uncanny
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
26d
in 2014, in the @NewYorker, I argued that one key metric for AI - far better than the long-obsolete Turing Test - was the ability of systems to comprehend new things such as movies or essays. (Part of my bet with @Miles_Brundage revolved around when that milestone might be
Adam Feldman
@FeldmanAdam
·
45d
Please read this incredibly entertaining/horrifying piece if any part of you thinks that AI can replace human judgment. I don’t want to spoil its twists for you so I’ll only say that they’re consistent with my own experience. https://amandaguinzburg.substack…

The statement is part of a conversation about AI's ability to understand and explain memes, which ties into broader discussions about AI's capabilities and limitations. This is a public discourse as it engages with the societal issue of AI comprehension and its implications.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm with words or actions. It is a neutral observation about AI demos.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does contribute to the discussion by providing a perspective on AI's capabilities.
  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 providing a counterpoint to the previous comment without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]