Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
6/26/2025, 1:57:59 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 technical discussion about AI safety and the expertise of Gary Marcus, questioning the practical impact of distribution shift in neural networks. It references a debate on AI risks and regulation, touching on the credibility of experts in the field.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm but questions the technical argument, which is a part of healthy discourse. [+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 privacy and dignity, focusing on technical arguments rather than personal attacks. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By questioning and seeking clarification, the statement promotes understanding and dialogue. [+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 without personal attacks, focusing on the technical aspects of the debate. [+1]