Gary Marcus

Rank 23 of 47

Score 29

-1

@quetzal_rainbow @ilex_ulmus you could by that logic call any scientist in history who had an idea for alternative approach when the dominant paradigm was failing a “grifter”

blocked.

9/2/2025, 1:49:31 PM

In reply to:

quetzal_rainbow

@quetzal_rainbow

15d

@ilex_ulmus @GaryMarcus Marcus doesn't say that AGI is impossible or whatever, he says that current paradigm is insufficient, with no-so-subtle message "give me money for my paradigm, it is more powerful and more safe, I promise". People don't like grifters.

Holly ⏸️ Elmore

@ilex_ulmus

15d

I’m suspicious that a lot of x-risk people hate @GaryMarcus bc they want AI to be powerful instead of bc they are concerned about people underestimating the threat.

The statement engages in a discussion about the perception of scientists and innovators, particularly in the context of AI and alternative paradigms. It challenges the notion of labeling someone a 'grifter' for proposing new ideas, suggesting that historically, many scientists have faced similar accusations when challenging dominant paradigms.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not directly harm others but could be seen as dismissive of the concerns raised by others in the conversation.
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it does block another user, which could be seen as dismissive rather than engaging in dialogue.
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement attempts to promote understanding by drawing a parallel with historical scientific discourse, but it could be more empathetic in addressing the concerns of others.
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 does not engage in constructive dialogue as it ends with blocking the user, which halts further discussion and could be seen as a personal attack. [-1]