Gary Marcus

Rank 24 of 47
|
Score 34
6/28/2025, 9:47:24 PM
X
In reply to:
Nicholas Griffin
@ngriffin_uk
·
49d
@burkov @GaryMarcus Not even that, just finding a parking space to charge them is gonna be incredibly difficult.

Super expensive in places like London, parking spaces are more than flats.
Andriy Burkov
@burkov
·
49d
@GaryMarcus I mean weather and traffic conditions. Add snow, rain, fog, and Indian traffic, and Waymo will give up :-)
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
49d
@burkov this is actually a little too strong. SFO is not a perfectly conditioned city, and Waymo drives reasonably reliably in most (though not all) of it.

100% agreeing on the finetuning part.
Andriy Burkov
@burkov
·
49d
@GaryMarcus > take years to perfect

The technology used fundamentally cannot be fixed for general-purpose agents to be perfect. Self-driving cars are still only used in tiny parts of perfectly conditioned cities to which they were specifically finetuned.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
49d
The Agonizing Life Cycle of AI Agents

Stage I: Loads of promises of how great AI agents will be [last year]

Stage II: Daily reports of AI agents screwing up massively [you are here — and will be for a long time]

Stage III: AI agents are truly trustworthy [don’t hold your
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
50d
This is, um, hilarious. But also, if you have been following along what I have been telling you, not in the least bit unexpected.

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the challenges and limitations of self-driving car technology, specifically addressing the role of human intervention in maintaining these vehicles. The tone is somewhat sarcastic, highlighting a perceived flaw in the technology's current state.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but uses sarcasm to critique the technology, which could be seen as a minor violation of promoting constructive dialogue. [-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 engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, and respects the privacy and dignity of others.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it uses sarcasm rather than constructive language. [-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 does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, focusing instead on the technology itself.