Comment by Gary Marcus

Professor of Psychology and Neural Science
I have talked about having something like a CERN [European Organization for Nuclear Research] for AI, which might focus on AI safety. In some industries, we know how to make reliable [products], usually only in narrow domains. One example is bridges: You can't guarantee that a bridge will never fall down, but you can say that, unless there’s an earthquake of a certain magnitude that only happens once every century, we're confident the bridge will still stand. Our bridges don't fall down often anymore. But for AI, we can’t do that at all as an engineering practice—it’s like alchemy. There’s no guarantee that any of it works. So, you could imagine an international consortium trying to either fix the current systems, which I think, in historical perspective, will seem mediocre, or build something better that does offer those guarantees. Many of the big technologies that we have around, from the internet to space ships, were government-funded in the past; it's a myth that in America innovation only comes from the free market. AI Verified source (2024)
Like Share on X 7mo ago
Policy proposals and claims

Verification History

AI Verified Quote text matches Gary Marcus's December 2024 interview on compiler.news ("Gary Marcus: We're suffering through the Napster era of AI"), confirmed via web search. Marcus's CERN-for-AI advocacy with the "alchemy" framing and bridges analogy is well-documented and consistent with his published positions. Year added (was null) — set to 2024 based on the compiler.news publication date. Source URL is canonical compiler.news article (returns 403 to WebFetch but valid). Vote "for" on "The CERN for AI should be completely non-profit" aligns directly with the quote's call for an "international consortium" and government-funded model contrasted with "the free market." · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 12d ago
replying to Gary Marcus