the biggest fear as noted is that openai and x (and perhaps others) would not show the same restraint.
@garymarcus
-
International AI Agency and Treaty Advocacy Since 2023
By
–
i have been advocating an international agency and treary around this for years, see my 2023 TED talk and article in the economist.
-
Necessary but insufficient: AI’s next decade outlook
By
–
it is necessary but not sufficient; see my article “next decade in AI”
-
Do Guns Cause Effects Equate to General Intelligence?
By
–
guns cause reliable effects on a general basis. does that make general intelligence? sending you off to mute
-
AI Hype Cycle: Initial Enthusiasm Meeting Reality Check
By
–
or a psychological effect of initial enthusiasm and hype gradually facing reality?
-
False dichotomy about LLM capabilities and limitations
By
–
literally fourteen minutes after my last explanation of why this is a false dichotomy 🤦♂️ Michael Foster (@realmfoster) so do LLM’s not work or are they too capable? Which is it Gary? — https://nitter.net/realmfoster/status/2041903282730283192#m
-
AI Companies Intentionally Degrade Models Between Releases
By
–
1. If true (and it does fit with my perceptions FWIW), this is an amazing and incredibly damning graph
— Gary Marcus (@GaryMarcus) 8 avril 2026
2. Can anyone find the source on which it is based? https://t.co/wn93WshtVL1. If true (and it does fit with my perceptions FWIW), this is an amazing and incredibly damning graph 2. Can anyone find the source on which it is based? Marcin Krzyzanowski (@krzyzanowskim) "Anthropic, OpenAl and Google release their new models with high quality from day one then slowly nerf them until the next model, so when the next model hits, its perceived as a bigger jump than it actually is" sounds right what's happening — https://nitter.net/krzyzanowskim/status/2041793699223322657#m
-
Should Dangerous AI Capabilities Be Legally Restricted?
By
–
the question isn’t whether it can be done but whether it should be legal. akin to chemical/biological weapons etc
-
James Cameron: Big Tech AGI Control Scarier Than Terminator
By
–
Director James Cameron on why Big Tech owning AGI is scarier than any science fiction he's ever made:
— Big Brain AI (@realBigBrainAI) 8 avril 2026
"AGI will not emerge from a government funded program. It will emerge from one of the tech giants currently funding this multi-billion dollar research."
And when that happens,… pic.twitter.com/towlgKDzpzDirector James Cameron on why Big Tech owning AGI is scarier than any science fiction he's ever made: "AGI will not emerge from a government funded program. It will emerge from one of the tech giants currently funding this multi-billion dollar research." And when that happens, he warns, you won't get a vote on it: "So then you'll be living in a world that you didn't agree to, didn't vote for, that you are co-inhabiting with a super intelligent alien species that answers to the goals and rules of a corporation." A corporation that already knows everything about you: "An entity which has access to the comms, beliefs, everything you ever said, and the whereabouts of every person in the country via your personal data." From there, the slide toward something far darker is shorter than most people think: "Surveillance capitalism can toggle pretty quickly into digital totalitarianism." And even the best-case outcome isn't reassuring. Tech giants becoming the self-appointed arbiters of human good is, as he puts it, the fox guarding the hen house. He's not buying the idea that these companies would stay benevolent with that kind of power: "They would never ever think of using that power against us and strip mining us for our last drop of cash." The sarcasm is the point. Cameron has spent four decades imagining worst-case futures on screen. His verdict on this one: "That's a scarier scenario than what I presented in the Terminator 40 years ago, if for no other reason than it's no longer science fiction."
-
AI Risk Without AGI: Harms From Current LLM Systems
By
–
🤯 AI doesn’t need to be AGI to cause harm! 🤯 ChatGPT can’t reliably run a timer but it has still been implicated in delusions, suicides, cognitive surrender, mass disinformation, and so much more. A system doesn’t have to be AGI to carry risks. Mythos probably isn’t AGI either (nothing’s really been released), but it clearly can be used as a cyberattacking tool etc* *the commenter below also misunderstands my views. I don’t think pure LLMs will ever be AGI but some approach will be eventually. (And I have always been clear about). (Also hardly anyone is using pure LLMs anymore; almost everyone has quietly moved to what I long urged: neurosymbolic AI, in which symbolic tools complement the weakness of pure LLMs, quietly vindicating what I have argued for 30 years.) Kudo (@CryptoC58828499) Please. If AI isn’t going to AGI (as you claim), then stop the damn fear mongering. — https://nitter.net/CryptoC58828499/status/2041898327965626458#m