I pro technology that we can count on.
@garymarcus
-
Software liability exemption and mass harm accountability
By
–
he literally wants an exemption from liability if his software causes mass death. can we stick to facts here?
-
OpenAI’s Gap Between Public Statements and Actual Behavior Widens
By
–
the gap between altmans public statements and openais actual behavior has been widening steadily for 2 years now. at some point "we want to benefit humanity" and "we want zero liability when our products cause harm" become mutually exclusive positions
→ View original post on X — @garymarcus, 2026-04-11 03:33 UTC
-
Gary Marcus Condemns Altman’s Moral Stance and Dishonesty
By
–
Violence was unjustified, and i don’t support it. But many many people may die at Altman’s hands and it is important to speak out when he lies about his moral stance. The headline below was the last straw for me.
→ View original post on X — @garymarcus, 2026-04-11 01:44 UTC
-
Gary Marcus Challenges Sam Altman’s Moral Claims on Surveillance and Liability
By
–
At this point how can anybody take seriously @sama’s claim that “Working towards prosperity for everyone, empowering all people, and advancing science and technology are moral obligations for me”, when he seems ready to participate in mass surveillance, has ripped off countless creators without compensation, and is now fighting liability for his products even in the event of mass casualty events? Sam Altman (@sama) I wrote this early this morning and I wasn't sure if I would actually publish it, but here it is: blog.samaltman.com/2279512 — https://nitter.net/sama/status/2042738954550603884#m
→ View original post on X — @garymarcus, 2026-04-11 01:22 UTC
-
AI Ethics Paradox: Surveillance and Creator Rights Violations
By
–
How can anybody take seriously your claim that “Working towards prosperity for everyone, empowering all people, and advancing science and technology are moral obligations for me”, when you seem ready to participate in mass surveillance, have ripped off countless creators without
-
Gary Marcus critiques Sam Altman’s response to family incident
By
–
What happened to Sam Altman and his family is really awful. It is hard to reconcile his call to “de-escalate the rhetoric and tactics” with his implication that a piece of critical journalism (Ronan Farrow and Andrew Marantz’s New Yorker article, presumably) was responsible for this. Sam Altman (@sama) I wrote this early this morning and I wasn't sure if I would actually publish it, but here it is: blog.samaltman.com/2279512 — https://nitter.net/sama/status/2042738954550603884#m
→ View original post on X — @garymarcus, 2026-04-11 00:02 UTC
-
Monthly Active Users Metrics Drive Tech Company Valuations
By
–
if you use it at all they presumably use that fact to justify (monthly active users etc) higher valuations…
-
AI Regulation: Finding Middle Ground Between Dismissal and Unchecked Freedom
By
–
To a degree that may surprise some people, I agree with much of this* from @deanwball and would only add that you don’t have to believe that AGI is remotely close to want to find—ASAP—a regulatory regime that foster innovation but also protects effectively against downside risks like massive cybercrime, Gen-AI influenced delusions, mass disinformation from foreign actors, nonconsensual deepfake porn, etc. We should not dismiss AI; we should not let it run entirely free. We need some middle ground. *I think that current frontiers models are highly capable in some ways but not others, and think in some important ways capability growth bulls have been important wrong (e.g. about how readily hallucinations could be remedied) but I don’t think that changes the need to act now. Dean W. Ball (@deanwball) “Describing highly capable frontier AI models as highly capable” is not “fear mongering.” “Taking AI seriously” is not “fear-mongering.” “Acknowledging obvious, realized or soon-to-be-realized risks” is not “fear-mongering.” The stark reality is that those who have taken AI capabilities growth seriously have been basically right about most important things in the last three years; those that haven’t have been consistently confused and, what’s worse, frustrated at the world about their own confusion. You don’t have to be a mega-pessimist or a “doomer” to take AI seriously. You don’t have to advocate for stark top-down controls over AI. You don’t have to support regulatory capture. It is possible to take AI seriously and advocate for a governmental response that is both effective *and* measured. To the young researchers out there, still trying to make their intellectual fortunes: Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. Do not let anyone bully you into believing otherwise. Think for yourself. — https://nitter.net/deanwball/status/2042685538415841742#m
→ View original post on X — @garymarcus, 2026-04-10 21:46 UTC
-
LLMs Cannot Match Human Chess Expertise Without Specialized Training
By
–
Garry @Kasparov63 retired from competitive chess over twenty years ago, and most or all of his tournament games are presumably publicly available – and yet I bet he still could crush any LLM that didn’t have chess-specific tools or special-purpose training. Gary Marcus (@GaryMarcus) Yet another illustration of why LLMs aren’t even close to being AGI. — https://nitter.net/GaryMarcus/status/2042701528352591972#m
→ View original post on X — @garymarcus, 2026-04-10 21:31 UTC