Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
647d
@IanOsband Neurosymbolic done right would be expensive. To be effective (see my Next Decade in AI in Arxiv) likely would requires either licensing or building a large scale knowledge base; it would require hiring minimum say 30-50 people in a period when top people are expecting millions;…
3/25/2024, 8:33:52 PM
X
In reply to:
Peter Voss
@peterevoss
·
647d
@GaryMarcus @IanOsband Serious
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
647d
@IanOsband Serious question or are you trolling?
Ian Osband
@IanOsband
·
648d
What would you do with so much money?

Why not start with something small and demonstrate scaling properties: theorems, experiments.
Then, come back and ask for more money with a clear plan.

Didn't people already give you $$$ for Geometric Intelligence?
Don't you have tenure?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
648d
Suppose just for a second that Domingos (and I, and many others) were correct that neurosymbolic AI was one of the most promising research directions, and further suppose that we lived in a world in which people trying to pursue that research direction couldn’t get 1% of the…

The statement is part of a conversation between public figures about neurosymbolic AI, a topic within the field of artificial intelligence research. The tone is inquisitive and critical, with one party questioning the financial aspects of pursuing such research. The intent seems to be to challenge the feasibility and financial planning of a large-scale AI project. The content revolves around the allocation of funds and the justification for such an investment in the context of scientific research.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to do harm with words or actions. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy and does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by questioning the scaling properties of the research. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism without personal attacks. [+1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    There is no indication of a mistake being made or corrected.
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to question the use of resources, which could be seen as aiming for the betterment of society by ensuring responsible financial planning in research. [+1]
  7. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech by engaging in a public discussion on a relevant topic responsibly. [+1]