Gary Marcus

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 29
9/2/2025, 2:07:21 PM
X
In reply to:
lethalintelligence.ai
@lethal_ai
·
15d
@GaryMarcus @tombibbys Before I got to know your content better @GaryMarcus, my superficial perception was that you are contributing to general public feeling reassured that there is no real danger.
From the perspective of ai safety comms that’s moving us towards the wrong direction as we need people
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
15d
@tombibbys but would you lie and say it is two when that was exceedingly unlikely, and launch a campaign of hatred again the scientists who estimated 10-15?
Tom Bibby
@tombibbys
·
15d
@GaryMarcus Let's say there were an asteroid headed for Earth, and we had no idea how to deflect it. Some are saying it's 2 years away, but I'm confident it's actually 5-15 years away.

I would mention that disagreement semi-regularly, of course, but most of my energy would be spent on
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
15d
Hating on me for the last three years didn’t make GPT-5 one bit smarter.

Meanwhile, why an x-risker would *want* AI to be powerful — before we have a decent solution to the alignment problem -– is entirely beyond me.

I don’t think anyone should underestimate the threat that
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 by @GaryMarcus addresses a public issue related to AI safety and public perception, responding to a critique about his stance on AI risks. The tone is defensive, aiming to clarify his position and highlight the societal impact of misinterpretations.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but suggests that misinterpretations have societal costs, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to promote understanding by clarifying a perceived misreading, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+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 in constructive dialogue by addressing a critique without resorting to personal attacks, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive criticism. [+1]