Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47

|

Score 87

-6

@Barga5ty @pianozack @chatgpt21 First time I ever used those words on X.

Really shaking my head at the fact that a PhD could have written something that rude and stupid and ad hominem without taking the time to even see how the data were collected (which was, after all, the subject the tweet!).

Every

6/29/2025, 2:34:20 PM

In reply to:

Didi

@Barga5ty

·

16d

@GaryMarcus @pianozack @chatgpt21 First time seeing you insulting lmaooo damn

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

·

16d

@pianozack @chatgpt21 Go fuck yourself. But read the paper first, because the data were collected by someone else.

Zack Dulberg

@pianozack

·

16d

@GaryMarcus @chatgpt21 Have you considered that even an AGI will continue to make dumb mistakes but ONLY FOR YOU just to mess with you and keep you angry for eternity because of how annoying you've been ?

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

·

16d

@chatgpt21 Chris, I honestly and truly cannot believe how dumb this tweet is, on multiple levels. One is that you OBVIOUSLY didn’t read the paper that you are criticizing.

The other is this: If GPT-5 can’t play chess without making illegal moves 5% of the time – despite exposure to

Chris

@chatgpt21

·

16d

Gary Marcus can’t go 5 minutes without saying o3 can’t play chess.

Eventually it will be “GPT 5 can play chess but it made an illegal move 5% of the time”

The statement involves a critique of a public figure's comments on AI capabilities, specifically regarding language models and their performance. The tone is critical and dismissive, using terms like 'rude,' 'stupid,' and 'ad hominem.' The intent appears to be to challenge the credibility and approach of the person being criticized.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement violates the principle of doing no harm with words by using derogatory language. [-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 respect the dignity of others, engaging in a personal attack. [-2]
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 fails to engage in constructive criticism, opting for personal attacks instead of a reasoned argument. [-2]