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, 8:34:09 PM
X
In reply to:
Nicholas Bailey
@AliasNickelby
·
647d
@GaryMarcus @IanOsband Even if the OP is trolling, I’d be curious to know the answer!
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
647d
@IanOsband Serious question or are you trolling?
Ian Osband
@IanOsband
·
647d
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 thread on social media that appears to be discussing the funding and research direction of neurosymbolic AI. The tone seems to be inquisitive and critical, with questions about the use of funds and the approach to scaling the research. The intent seems to be to challenge the claims about the necessity of large-scale funding for neurosymbolic AI research and to suggest a more incremental approach to demonstrating its viability. The content is focused on the specifics of AI research funding and strategy, which is a topic of public interest within the tech and scientific community.