Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/30/2025, 12:09:33 AM
X
In reply to:
Andres Franco
@theinsiderzclub
·
7d
@primalpoly @GaryMarcus If we deploy more resources on truly understanding what’s so called the “black box” then we could potentially align AI with humanities values
Geoffrey Miller
@primalpoly
·
8d
@theinsiderzclub @GaryMarcus How exactly would that protect humans against AI extinction risks?
Sounds extremely vague.
Andres Franco
@theinsiderzclub
·
8d
@primalpoly @GaryMarcus No, I believe progress is necessary without stopping but the same energy/funds companies
are putting into these models should also go into setting up systems that grow as these models also grow
Geoffrey Miller
@primalpoly
·
8d
@theinsiderzclub @GaryMarcus So, we should just up and let ASI kill us all?

No thanks.
Andres Franco
@theinsiderzclub
·
8d
@GaryMarcus @primalpoly That’s like hoping for the impossible. Once the stone started rolling, there was no stopping.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
8d
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 is part of a public discourse on the topic of AI safety and the alignment of AI with human values. It questions the effectiveness of efforts to understand AI's 'black box' and suggests skepticism about the potential outcomes of such efforts.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and maintains a neutral tone, adhering to the principle of doing no harm with words. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does raise a valid concern about the effectiveness of current efforts, which can contribute to a deeper understanding of the issue.
  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 criticism by questioning the effectiveness of a proposed solution without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]