Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/23/2025, 4:28:10 AM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
15d
@GaryMarcus @DKokotajlo Uncharitably, I think they're not thinking very clearly. @ohabryka would say that they're being corrupted by the massive financial incentives involved in AI development, plus the social incentives of "don't be a doomer".
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
15d
@justanotherlaw @DKokotajlo what on earth is the argument of the other 75-99%?

i honestly don’t see any compelling argument that the current approach is working.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
15d
@GaryMarcus @DKokotajlo I do want to point out that more than 1% of the AIS community does agree with you that current business-as-usual alignment does not seem to be working. Maybe 25% if I had to guess.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
15d
@GaryMarcus I think it's worth separating out the disagreement of 1) "will LLMs lead to AGI in <15 years" from 2) "is it feasible to align LLMs reliably".

We probably shouldn't just rehash the same conversation about 1) again. I'll instead leave that to people like @DKokotajlo, who are
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
15d
@GaryMarcus Yep, I agree that there have not been any stellar, compelling results, in large part because of the focus on incremental progress with current systems.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
15d
@justanotherlaw great. now it is less than 1%, and the 99% are focusing on hasn’t yielded any stellar, compelling results.

that should be a huge sign.

The statement is part of a broader discussion on AI development and alignment, engaging with public concerns about the influence of financial and social incentives on AI researchers. It critiques the proximity of certain individuals to accelerationist views, suggesting a potential conflict of interest.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm others but implies a critique of certain individuals' positions, which could be seen as indirectly harmful if not substantiated.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy by not naming individuals directly but implies criticism of their professional integrity, which could border on harassment if not carefully articulated. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement seeks to promote understanding by questioning the motivations behind certain positions in AI development, encouraging transparency. [+1]
  4. 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 intellectual distance of individuals from accelerationist views, though it risks being perceived as a personal attack if not substantiated with evidence.