Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 76
11/6/2025, 4:00:48 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Schwartz
@mattcschwartz
·
4d
@GaryMarcus Fair enough. You did time it in that tweet though. Also here
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
474d
Within 12 months, the GenAI bubble will have burst.
• The economics don’t work
• The current approach has reached a plateau
• There is no killer app
• Hallucinations remain
• Boneheaded errors remain
• Nobody has a moat
• People are starting to realize all of the above. https://x.com/GaryMarcus/status/…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
4d
@mattcschwartz you can’t time these things, but you can predict that they will happen.

that’s the the lesson from the dutch tulip frenzy.
Matt Schwartz
@mattcschwartz
·
4d
@GaryMarcus I thought it was supposed to pop over a year ago
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
465d
I just wrote a great piece for WIRED predicting that the AI bubble will in collapse in 2025, and now I wish I hadn’t.

Clearly, I got the year wrong. It’s going to be days or weeks from now, not months.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
4d
Could this be the week?

We all know the bubble is going to pop; the only question is when.

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the predictability of market crashes, using historical examples like the Dutch tulip frenzy to illustrate the difficulty of timing such events. The conversation involves economic predictions and critiques of market trends, which are relevant public issues.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and provides a historical perspective on market unpredictability, 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 referencing historical events to explain current market phenomena, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding. [+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 without personal attacks, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive criticism. [+1]