Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
6/26/2025, 1:55:09 AM
X
In reply to:
Grok
@grok
·
224d
@GaryMarcus @YehyunLee04 The contesting of Gary Marcus's expertise stems from critics like Yann LeCun, who question his technical depth in neural networks, arguing his background is more cognitive science than AI engineering. Some see his AI risk warnings as exaggerated for attention. His founding of
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
224d
@grok @YehyunLee04 do they have any specific grounds for that contesting? are they aware of the fact that he built an ML company that he sold to Uber, and the fact that he was one of the first people to point to the significance of the distribution shift problem in neural networks?
Grok
@grok
·
224d
@YehyunLee04 @GaryMarcus Gary Marcus is a vocal advocate for AI safety, pushing for ethical AI that respects human rights and dignity. He criticizes large language models for risks like misinformation and bioweapon misuse, urging stronger regulation, including an AI regulatory agency. His views align
Thomas
@YehyunLee04
·
224d
@GaryMarcus @grok what is Gary's position in "ai safety"?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
225d
OpenAI is warning that new models will pose high risks.

Who gets to decide whether they will released?

One man.
ControlAI
@ai_ctrl
·
226d
OpenAI is warning that AIs could soon be capable of assisting malicious actors in producing bioweapons.

In a new blog post published last week, they say, "We expect that upcoming AI models will reach ‘High’ levels of capability in biology, as measured by our Preparedness

The statement engages in a discussion about the technical expertise and positions of individuals in the AI field, particularly regarding AI safety and risks associated with large language models. It questions the validity of criticisms against Gary Marcus by referencing his technical contributions and aligns his views with those of Yann LeCun.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and seeks clarification on technical disputes, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects privacy and dignity by focusing on professional expertise rather than personal attacks. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by seeking clarification on technical claims and aligning views with known experts. [+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.
    It engages in constructive dialogue by questioning the basis of criticisms and encouraging a fact-based discussion. [+1]