Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/29/2025, 3:24:41 PM
X
In reply to:
schlynthesis
@schlynthesis
·
12d
@GaryMarcus oh yeah because when it comes to potentially possessing world ending superweapons, everyone listens to treaties 100% of the time. didn't we have a war about this a week ago
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
12d
@schlynthesis obviously we would need treaties, which have been widely discussed, but you be you and ignore that
schlynthesis
@schlynthesis
·
12d
whenever I hear "pause AI" all I parse is "I want the first superintelligence to be developed as a covert superweapon"
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
12d
Here is the best argument for pausing AI until safety is worked out (however many centuries that might take, per @primalpoly).

• You can’t possibly follow laws like Asimov’s Laws (or better alternatives to them) if you can’t reliably learn to abide by simple thing like the

The statement engages in a discussion about the risks of superintelligence and the effectiveness of treaties in managing such risks. It suggests caution in developing superintelligence without solving alignment issues, referencing historical success with treaties like MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to do no harm by advocating for caution in developing superintelligence without solving alignment issues. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by referencing historical examples of treaties to support its argument. [+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 constructive dialogue by responding to concerns about the effectiveness of treaties. [+1]