Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/24/2025, 3:49:24 PM
X
In reply to:
Haider.
@slow_developer
·
9d
@GaryMarcus @DeryaTR_ @MLStreetTalk @DKokotajlo @DanHendrycks that's very unfortunate. i don’t always agree with gary, but i still listen to his opinion...
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
9d
@slow_developer @DeryaTR_ @MLStreetTalk @DKokotajlo @DanHendrycks What @DeryaTR_ means to say is that he literally doesn’t want to listen to a polite discussion between three people with differing views, because it might hurt his belief system.
Haider.
@slow_developer
·
9d
@DeryaTR_ its on a @MLStreetTalk YT channel... the guest are @DKokotajlo @DanHendrycks @GaryMarcus
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
9d
@slow_developer Who is talking with?
Haider.
@slow_developer
·
9d
@DeryaTR_ i don't completely understand the context of your reply, but if you listen to this podcast, daniel says there's a 50% chance of superintelligence by the end of 2028
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
9d
@slow_developer The guy who doesn’t believe we’ll have AGI in the next decade teams up with the fearmongering guy who thinks AGI will take over very soon. That’s how they get engagement! Also unfollowed, don’t want to see this crap on my timeline.

The statement is part of a public discourse as it engages in a discussion about intellectual integrity and public dialogue, which are societal issues. The tone is critical and somewhat dismissive, suggesting a change in someone's intellectual stance without providing substantive reasoning.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm but implies a negative change in someone's intellectual capacity without evidence, which could be seen as harmful. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not respect the dignity of the person it addresses by implying a negative change without explanation, bordering on disrespect. [-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 lacks constructive criticism and instead makes a personal remark about someone's intellectual change without engaging in dialogue or providing evidence. [-2]