Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47

Score 83

@slatestarcodex @neil_chilson @sriramk AI 2027 was literally the name of the website. https://ai-2027.com/

It still is!

And that subtitle was NOT the subtitle of the report itself. By pointing instead to your blog are still not owning what you did.

I am 100% with @sriramk.

11/23/2025, 6:21:31 PM

In reply to:

Scott Alexander

@slatestarcodex

11d

@neil_chilson @sriramk I can only speak for the ACX post, intended as the pop sci version for lazy people. See below for how it appeared on feeds (note subtitle, explained in text).

I think if someone can't bring themselves to read the subtitle of the lazy pop sci version, there's no helping them.

Neil Chilson ⤴️⬆️🆙📈 🚀

@neil_chilson

11d

@sriramk @slatestarcodex If this was a product claim, the FTC would consider it deceptive.

Neil Chilson ⤴️⬆️🆙📈 🚀

@neil_chilson

11d

This is how the FTC judges whether caveated claims are deceptive:

Sriram Krishnan

@sriramk

11d

This is frustrating given the amount of fear this project generated with the media tour around it by Daniel and @slatestarcodex

Daniel Kokotajlo

@DKokotajlo

11d

@tszzl Unfortunately, yeah. Perhaps we should have titled the scenario differently. Too late to change it now though.

The statement engages in a discussion about the presentation and perception of AI predictions, specifically addressing concerns about potential misinformation and the responsibility of the authors to clarify their claims. The tone is critical, focusing on accountability and transparency.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement aims to hold the authors accountable for potential misinformation, aligning with the principle of doing no harm by addressing the impact of their claims. [+1]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
It respects the privacy and dignity of others by focusing on the content and not engaging in personal attacks. [+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, addressing the need for clarity and transparency in public communications. [+1]