Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/23/2025, 2:39:02 AM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
19d
@GaryMarcus Of course, these aren't mutually exclusive or jointly exhaustive -- you might hope for 2 3 4 at once (which is what I'd imagine you'd push for).
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
19d
@GaryMarcus What sort of engagement do you want here?

I agree with the four possible paths forward that you outlined. Paraphrasing a bit, to prevent catastrophic risk from AI, we can:
1. Hope for 'alignment-by-default', or at least that alignment magically becomes easy in the immediate
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
19d
Would love to see the AI Safety community engage with this article, which raises challenges about the work that has been done so far, while suggesting that we might need to follow different avenues to make progress.
Saud Hashimi
@saudhashimi
·
19d
A super article by @GaryMarcus that attempted to answer the question of the AI epoch: how do we control behaviour to stop bad AI outcomes. Worth a read.

https://garymarcus.substack.com/…

The statement is part of a discussion on AI safety, specifically addressing strategies to mitigate risks associated with large language models (LLMs). It suggests a multi-faceted approach, including research incentives, to address these challenges.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aligns with the principle of striving to do no harm by discussing strategies to prevent catastrophic risks from AI. [+2]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding and empathy by engaging in a constructive dialogue about potential solutions to AI risks. [+2]
  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 criticism and dialogue, focusing on solutions rather than personal attacks. [+2]