Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
Sriram Krishnan
@sriramk
·
10d
Since a few folks have asked: my solution to the AI 2027 kerfuffle this week is that the authors should either retract and/or rename the project to better reflect they now say they were trying to do - including highlighting the difference in opinions and confidence levels.
11/22/2025, 7:42:35 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
10d
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!)

The statement involves a discussion about AI predictions and the importance of accurate branding and communication. It critiques the naming of the 'AI 2027' report and suggests rebranding to reflect updated predictions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to prevent misinformation by suggesting a rebranding to avoid misleading the public, 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.
    By advocating for clarity and transparency, the statement promotes understanding and empathy among stakeholders. [+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 by suggesting a solution rather than attacking the authors personally. [+1]