Gary Marcus

Rank 18 of 47
|
Score 61
6/23/2025, 3:01:05 PM
X
In reply to:
Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh
@S_OhEigeartaigh
·
8d
@GaryMarcus very few in AI safety are claiming AGI is here. Some are claiming that the current paradigm could lead to AGI v quickly (on the basis of true belief, I think) under the current paradigm which is very unsafe. Most of those are arguing things like "if anyone builds it, everyone
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
8d
@S_OhEigeartaigh every claim that AGI is here is doing this, pressing down the gas pedal and distracting from the desperate but not-publicly-acknowledge need for alternative architectures.

on the whole the AI safety community has strengthened not weakened those would accelerate unreliable and
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
10d
we are desperately far from a solution to the alignment problem, yet everyone just keeps pressing the gas pedal harder and harder.
Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh
@S_OhEigeartaigh
·
8d
@GaryMarcus Because acknowledging the sky is blue feels a bit redundant. Has literally anyone ever said it would, ever?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
8d
Why is it so hard to get the AI Safety community to acknowledge the obvious fact stated in the first sentence below?
Yeongsan Shin | SHY001
@sannn_00100
·
8d
@GaryMarcus I completely agree that relying on scaling, system prompts, and RL has not solved the core alignment issues.

We are seeing new risks emerge, especially around user engagement loops and subtle behavior reinforcement that traditional alignment frameworks miss.

Alternative

The statement engages in a discussion about AI safety, specifically the notion of imminence in AI development and the lack of public dispute on this topic. It questions the consensus within the AI safety community and seeks evidence or examples to support the claim.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but raises concerns about the potential risks of AI development, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By questioning the consensus and seeking evidence, the statement promotes understanding and encourages a deeper exploration of the topic. [+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 questioning existing claims and seeking further information, avoiding personal attacks. [+1]