Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/23/2025, 3:06:08 AM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
18d
@GaryMarcus The problem with "make a new AI paradigm" is not a lack of desire. Many AI academics want this, especially those from an older time when making new insights about intelligence was key to AI progress.

The problem with making a new paradigm is that it turned out to be too hard.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
18d
@GaryMarcus It's not that AIS people haven't considered working on 4 -- Yoshua Bengio and davidad come to mind here as contemporary efforts, Stuart Russell and Eric Drexler as older examples. And of course a lot of mech interp people in 2022-3. I think MIRI also tried this in 2018-20, but
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
18d
@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
·
18d
@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
·
18d
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
·
18d
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 engages in public discourse by discussing the allocation of resources and efforts towards developing alternative AI paradigms to prevent potential catastrophic risks. It critiques the current focus and suggests that insufficient attention is being given to exploring other options, which could lead to significant negative consequences.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement raises concerns about the potential harm of not exploring alternative AI paradigms, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By highlighting the need for more exploration of alternatives, the statement promotes understanding and awareness of the potential risks associated with current AI development paths. [+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 criticism by questioning the current allocation of resources and suggesting a need for broader exploration, without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]