Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/23/2025, 3:02:46 AM
X
In reply to:
Rob Miles (in SF)
@robertskmiles
·
18d
@GaryMarcus @xriskology To be clear, I was only replying to what I was replying to. My point is that "more details make stories less likely" is true, but this is inherent to any specific scenario rollout, and the authors (and all sensible readers) understand this
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
18d
@robertskmiles @xriskology thank you for engaging substantively with the specifics of my critique.
Rob Miles (in SF)
@robertskmiles
·
18d
@xriskology @GaryMarcus Yeah, the probability of AI 2027 coming true is extremely low. The company they claim will develop AGI doesn't even exist!
Dr. Émile P. Torres
@xriskology
·
18d
A fantastic, detailed critique by @GaryMarcus of the "AI 2027" forecast. Worth noting that as the plausibility of a story increases, its probability simultaneously falls--every additional "and then" drives the probability down, and this forecast is full of "and then."

The statement is part of a discussion on the plausibility of an AI scenario, engaging with critiques and interpretations of an article. It suggests that the other participant should read the article for better understanding, implying a need for informed discussion.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm but suggests a constructive action (reading the article) for better understanding. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by encouraging the other party to read the article, which could lead to a more informed discussion. [+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 by suggesting a way to improve the conversation, without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]