Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/29/2025, 6:23:37 PM
X
In reply to:
David Knopfler 💙
@DavidKnopfler
·
9d
@GaryMarcus Is it beyond all possible wildest fantasies that some agreed ethical foundation that all labs can agree on can be hammered out? I’m possibly one of those nutters because I would favour allowing the AI to set up the framework for the owners to agree on
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
9d
I hate to say this, but…

If unreliable AI kills a large segment of humanity it will be in part because people would rather dunk on me — usually in misguided ways that fail to engage with my actual arguments — than address the real problems for alignment that I keep raising.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
9d
An astoundingly stupid reply to my recent Substack on chess, by someone who obviously didn’t actually read the essay:

If GPT-5 can’t play chess without making illegal moves 5% of the time – despite exposure to millions of games and explicit rules and books about chess etc – that

The statement engages in a discussion about AI ethics and alignment, responding to a broader conversation about AI's capabilities and potential risks. It suggests skepticism about achieving a universal ethical framework for AI labs, hinting at challenges in consensus-building.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but expresses skepticism about achieving consensus on ethical AI frameworks.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not actively promote understanding or empathy but engages in a critical discussion about AI ethics.
  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 questioning the feasibility of a universal ethical framework, without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]