Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47

Score 83

The White House Senior Advisor on AI Policy @sriramk makes a really good point here.

I’ll rephrase it slightly. The “AI 2027”
report had an excellent appendix looking at probability distributions over time; anyone who read it carefully would realize that AGI 2027 was just one of

Sriram Krishnan

@sriramk

12d

I think if you call something “AI 2027” and your predictions are wrong 6 months in that you now think it is AI 2030 , you should redo the branding ( or make a change bigger than a footnote!)

11/22/2025, 7:32:05 PM

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the accuracy and implications of AI development timelines, specifically regarding the 'AI 2027' report. It critiques the need for transparency and accuracy in AI predictions, which are significant public issues.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does no harm and encourages transparency in AI predictions, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
It promotes understanding by discussing the importance of accurate predictions in AI development, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding. [+1]
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 by suggesting a rebranding or significant change if predictions are inaccurate, aligning with the principle of constructive dialogue. [+1]