Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 76
11/6/2025, 4:01:47 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Schwartz
@mattcschwartz
·
4d
@GaryMarcus On a more serious note though, I don't get how this is analogous to the tulip frenzy. I feel like AI investment is because people think AI will be very valuable, even though you obviously disagree. But it doesn't seem plausible that it's pure speculation?
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
·
464d
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 a discussion about the speculative nature of AI investments and the potential for AI to generate significant revenue or achieve AGI. It questions the validity of high expectations surrounding AI, contributing to a broader debate on AI's economic impact and technological potential.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and encourages a critical examination of AI investment claims. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By questioning speculative claims, it promotes understanding and a more grounded perspective on AI's 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 in constructive criticism without personal attacks, focusing on the topic rather than individuals. [+1]