Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
11/23/2025, 8:04:04 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
9d
I will emphasize that *so many* criticisms of AI-2027 are made in bad faith.

They launched with a highly publicized request for people to provide their specific dissenting views, and people mostly didn't. But now, they (appropriately) update, and formerly silent critics pile on.
Daniel Kokotajlo
@DKokotajlo
·
9d
@SQUIDLITCORE We've stuck our necks out more than pretty much anyone. The internet is full of quantitative forecasts we've made, mostly about AGI. If e.g. 2030 comes by with no AGI, then more than half of the probability mass-weighted worlds I believed in in 2024 turned out to be false. If

The statement by Gary Marcus constitutes public discourse as it engages with the ongoing debate about AI development timelines, specifically critiquing the 'AI 2027' scenario. The statement is part of a broader conversation about the validity and reception of AI predictions, which are significant public issues given the societal implications of AI advancements.

  1. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by providing a critique and sharing it publicly, which can foster informed discussion. [+1]
  2. 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 referencing a critique and inviting engagement, without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]
  3. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement uses the platform responsibly by contributing to the discourse on AI timelines, a topic of public interest. [+1]