Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
6/27/2025, 11:50:17 PM
X
In reply to:
Nek
@Enscion25
·
230d
@GaryMarcus I'm not suggesting that the super intelligence would launch the attack.
I'm speculating that the nation which achieves it first would use the window of time to stop the other. By any means necessary.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
230d
@Enscion25 super intelligence isn’t magic; it still needs to ran experiments, have access to resources etc.

also it won’t come from pure LLMs.
Nek
@Enscion25
·
230d
@GaryMarcus Quick question
Let's imagine one of these nations acquiring a "true" super intelligence. There's a short window before the other gets to it. Would they use that window to strike the other ?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
230d
Unpopular Opinion: 5 years from now the China-U.S. LLM race will be an absolute tie.

It’s not like Coke put Pepsi out of business.

The statement engages in a speculative discussion about the potential geopolitical consequences of one nation achieving superintelligence before another. It touches on serious public issues such as nuclear war, espionage, and international relations, making it a part of public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly advocate for harm but acknowledges the high cost of nuclear war, which could be seen as a neutral stance rather than promoting harm.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks elements that promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It focuses on strategic actions rather than fostering dialogue or empathy. [-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 speculative dialogue without personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, maintaining a focus on the topic rather than individuals. [+1]