Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/23/2025, 3:12:08 AM
X
In reply to:
Rob Miles (in SF)
@robertskmiles
·
18d
@GaryMarcus @xriskology I probably will! But I wasn't replying to the article, I was replying to a tweet, which I read in full
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
18d
@robertskmiles @xriskology my point is that you might want to actually read the article
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 critiques the AI 2027 community for not engaging with counterarguments, suggesting a lack of rational discourse given the high stakes involved. It aims to highlight the importance of open dialogue and critical engagement with differing viewpoints.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to promote rational discourse, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm through encouraging open dialogue. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By calling for engagement with counterarguments, the statement promotes understanding and empathy, aligning with this principle. [+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 pointing out a perceived lack of engagement with counterarguments, without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]