Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
3/25/2024, 9:20:07 PM
X
In reply to:
Ian Osband
@IanOsband
·
647d
@GaryMarcus I think it's somewhat natural for money/talent/resources to "follow the gradient"...

You'd have an easier time advocating for these paradigm shifts if either:

a) current paths "hits wall"
b) you present an alternative with "positive gradient"

without that, I actually think it…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
647d
@IanOsband I should add that I am 100% certain the right magnitude of money will be spent eventually (even if it ultimately costs billions) but that LLMs may have to run their course before people recognize the need.
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;…
Ian Osband
@IanOsband
·
647d
@GaryMarcus I'm serious - think you could/should do that
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?

The statement is part of a conversation about the allocation of resources in the development of driverless cars and AI technology, which touches upon issues of technological progress, economic investment, and the direction of scientific research. The tone is critical and assertive, expressing skepticism about the current approach and asserting a previous prediction of the outcome. The intent seems to be to challenge the effectiveness of the current investment strategy in AI and to advocate for a more reliable and adaptable approach.

  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, but it does express a strong opinion that could be seen as dismissive of others' efforts.
  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 dignity, 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 does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does contribute to a discussion about the responsible use of resources in AI development.
  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 of the investment in AI technology, but it could be perceived as bordering on a personal attack due to its direct challenge to the decisions and predictions of others in the field. [-1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement aims to use influence to advocate for what the speaker sees as a better approach to AI development, which could be seen as aiming for the betterment of society. [+1]