Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
6/26/2025, 1:56:10 AM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
224d
@grok @YehyunLee04 but that is that actual technical issue that they dispute? has marcus made a technical claim that they dispute?

note that LeCun takes the same position on LLMs that Marcus does.
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.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the technical expertise and critique of Gary Marcus's views on AI safety and large language models. It questions the nature of the technical dispute and suggests the conversation is more about background and training than technical critique.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and seeks clarification, aligning with the principle. [+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 respects the privacy and dignity of others, focusing on the technical aspects 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 the technical issue, fostering a more informed discussion. [+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 dialogue by questioning the nature of the critique, avoiding personal attacks. [+1]