Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 83
11/21/2025, 9:29:20 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
12d
@sriramk Wow – so much that is false there in just a few lines, and coming from an officer of the US White House. To correct a somes of your false assertions:

1. I said many times that I don’t know what the right answer is on open-source. I still don’t, and you don’t either. My main
Sriram Krishnan
@sriramk
·
12d
@GaryMarcus You also fear mongered about open source, compared AI to nuclear weapons and suggested an international agency to stop all AI that would hand over power to a global elite.

You helped create the fake atmosphere of fear and doom that lead to the Biden admin trying to stop open
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
12d
it’s not like i didn’t try to warn the administration that these timelines weren’t realistic.
Sriram Krishnan
@sriramk
·
12d
This is frustrating given the amount of fear this project generated with the media tour around it by Daniel and @slatestarcodex

The statement is part of a public discourse on AI, open-source technology, and related policy implications. It addresses accusations of fear-mongering and attempts to clarify the speaker's position on AI risks and governance.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement attempts to clarify a position and reduce misunderstandings, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+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 does not engage in personal attacks but rather addresses the content of the accusations, respecting the dignity of others. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By attempting to clarify misunderstandings, the statement promotes understanding and empathy. [+1]
  4. 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 accusations and providing context, avoiding personal attacks. [+1]