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 6mo ago
Policy proposals and claims

Verification History

AI Verified Verified via web search. The quote is from Gary Marcus's interview on compiler.news ("Gary Marcus: We're suffering through the Napster era of AI"). Search results confirm the bridges/alchemy analogy and discussion of CERN for AI for AI safety. Marcus has been a public proponent of a CERN for AI since 2017. The vote "for" on "Grant member states majority governance control in the CERN for AI" aligns with the quote's emphasis on government funding and international consortia rather than free-market AI development. Source URL returned 403 to WebFetch but search excerpts directly quote the content. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 4d ago
replying to Gary Marcus