Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/30/2025, 12:13:54 AM
X
In reply to:
Robin Hanson
@robinhanson
·
7d
@GaryMarcus @primalpoly So let's just apply human law to AIs.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
7d
@robinhanson @primalpoly we have an imperfect system of laws that to some degree keeps than in check

vs (roughly speaking) fuck-all for LLMs.
Robin Hanson
@robinhanson
·
7d
@GaryMarcus @primalpoly Humans don't follow those three laws, yet they run the world's infrastructure.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
7d
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
neuralamp
@neuralamp4ever
·
7d
@GaryMarcus

The statement engages in a discussion about AI's ability to follow rules and the application of human laws to AI, which is a substantive public issue. The tone is speculative and hopeful about future AI developments.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and expresses a hope for improvement in AI rule-following, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by engaging in a dialogue about AI's capabilities and future potential. [+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 constructively with the ongoing conversation, without personal attacks, focusing on the topic of AI and law. [+1]