Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
11/20/2025, 10:26:54 PM
X
In reply to:
0.005 Seconds (3/694)
@seconds_0
路
14d
@GaryMarcus @grok please explain the 2010 SPEECH act to our esteemed Mr. Marcus on how the enforceability of Canadian Law in the US is 1. preposterous on its face and 2. explicitly ignored for libel and slander
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
路
14d
@seconds_0 did you not read that i live in (and read the libel in) Canada? 馃檮

that ain鈥檛 gonna save your bro, sorry.
0.005 Seconds (3/694)
@seconds_0
路
14d
Its actually pretty incredible that Gary Marcus continues to reinforce the belief he doesnt understand anything by choosing to believe that Canadian speech laws are enforceable in the United States.

Go back to claiming LLMs hit the wall in 2023 or whatever excites you now
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
路
14d
I want to personally thank the supporters of the LeCun supporter who lied about me! 馃槑

Why? Because they are actually helping my case if I choose to sue by establishing malice, and clarifying that I was indeed the intended target. 馃檹 (Under B.C. law where I live you don't have

The statement involves a discussion about libel laws and their applicability across borders, specifically between Canada and the US. It addresses a public issue related to legal jurisdiction and defamation, and the tone is defensive and corrective. The statement acknowledges a misunderstanding and expresses appreciation for clarification, while also addressing a serious accusation of libel.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to correct a misunderstanding and address a potentially harmful situation, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm.聽[+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy and dignity by not engaging in personal attacks, though it does address a serious accusation.聽[+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 acknowledging a mistake and expressing willingness to address it, avoiding personal attacks.聽[+1]