Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/30/2025, 10:01:43 PM
X
In reply to:
Edmund Kudzayi
@EdmundKudzayi
·
6d
@GaryMarcus @DarioAmodei @ChengleiSi Nor did I say it was the basis, only that it was linked to the bet. That’s a distinction worth keeping in view.

Regardless, whether it is was part of a bundle or the premise, as you mistakenly suggest I claimed, the substantive point remains: it no longer features on your list.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
7d
@EdmundKudzayi @DarioAmodei @ChengleiSi and i never offered 1m on 10k lines of code alone.

please check your facts.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
7d
@EdmundKudzayi @DarioAmodei @ChengleiSi this is separate, addressing a specific, separate claim.

(also you have somewhat confused the other million dollar offer, which was never specifically about the 10k lines; that was a different bet that i would still probably take.)
Edmund Kudzayi
@EdmundKudzayi
·
7d
@GaryMarcus @DarioAmodei @ChengleiSi I see you’ve dropped the 10,000 lines of code once linked to your million-dollar offer. Why? That question alone exposes why these grand pronouncements are ultimately pointless. The issues raised are irrelevant to the immediate remarkable utility; so much so that what seemed
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
7d
🎺 I am hereby publicly offering to bet @darioamodei $1,000,000 that AI in 2027 will NOT be “smarter than Nobel Prize winners across most fields in science and engineering”. 🎺

Why? We are nowhere close. Consider:

• New Stanford study from @ChengleiSi shows that “LLM ideas

The conversation involves a debate about AI capabilities and a public bet regarding AI's future intelligence. The tone is argumentative, with participants clarifying and disputing claims about a bet related to AI development.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The discourse does not appear to cause harm, but the argumentative tone could be more constructive.
  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 conversation involves some personal attacks and dismissive language, which detracts from constructive dialogue. [-1]