Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
11/22/2025, 7:47:46 PM
X
In reply to:
Andrew Orlowski
@AndrewOrlowski
·
10d
@GaryMarcus @sriramk A frustrated fiction writer
Scott Alexander
@slatestarcodex
·
240d
@ESYudkowsky @dwarkesh_sp @DKokotajlo In our scenario, the AI companies wake up the President in February 2027, leading to increased federal meddling. AIs don't get superintelligent persuasion abilities until November 2027 - at which point we do have them manipulate the President and everyone else.
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 engages in a discussion about the realism of AI predictions, specifically the 'AI 2027' scenario. It critiques the scenario as fictional, suggesting skepticism about its predictions. The conversation involves multiple participants discussing the implications and accuracy of AI development timelines.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm; it critiques a scenario in a constructive manner. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by engaging in a discussion about AI predictions and their realism. [+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 content of the scenario. [+1]