OK, sure, it's a better answer given that it does actually try and address his arguments and includes sources. But then you've included some very unfair/invali

OK, sure, it's a better answer given that it does actually try and address his arguments and includes sources. But then you've included some very unfair/invalid lines of attack. You've used quote marks when attributing arguments to him, but these are not actual quotes. You've asserted that he argues that "current AI research ... presents an existential risk" - which he recently said he specifically doesn't believe [1]. For the record, I've been aware of Gary Marcus and his positions on AI research since he was on EconTalk in 2014 [2]. I don't consider him the most compelling skeptic on contemporary AI, but I find it beneficial to hear and consider what he has to say. I'm also very familiar with ‘Mr Wern’ and his approach to discussing this and other topics. I've personally debated him on this website over a different topic, and whilst I benefited by learning new things about that topic, which was good, I was also surprised how much somebody of that persuasion would resort to emotion-charged, flawed or fallacious arguments when pressed. And this is the main issue I'm wanting to confront: whether it's in this thread, or on LW/OB, or Sam Altman himself (in this tweet [3] that to me was a pretty alarming mask-slip for someone who has worked so hard to portray himself as a good operator over the years), it's striking how quickly the arguments turn personal and nasty rather than just pointing to simple proof that he's wrong. Which is just further evidence that discussion about this topic is so much more driven by emotion and grandiosity than sober examination of evidence. As for Gary Marcus, sure, for someone who speaks/writes publicly a lot, you can always find specific details on which they might be wrong at a point in time. And where he's clearly factually wrong he should be corrected and he should welcome that. But I'm yet to see any slam-dunk evidence that the central position that he's continued to argue and explain for years is wrong. Indeed, this quote from a post of his from 2018 [4] seems to be identical in substance to what Sam Altman said at Cambridge this very month [5]: "Possibly. I do think that deep learning might play an important role in getting us to AGI, if some key things (many not yet discovered) are added in first." [1] https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230604-human-extinction-threat-overblown-says-ai-sage-marcus https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230604-human-extinct... [2] https://www.econtalk.org/gary-marcus-on-the-future-of-artificial-intelligence-and-the-brain https://www.econtalk.org/gary-marcus-on-the-future-of-artifi... [3] https://x.com/sama/status/1512471289545383940 https://x.com/sama/status/1512471289545383940 [4] https://medium.com/@GaryMarcus/in-defense-of-skepticism-about-deep-learning-6e8bfd5ae0f1 https://medium.com/@GaryMarcus/in-defense-of-skepticism-abou... [5] https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/17wknc5/altman_there_are_more_breakthroughs_required_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/17wknc5/altman...