Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
3/28/2024, 7:45:22 PM
X
In reply to:
Yonathan Arbel
@ProfArbel
·
640d
@GaryMarcus @emollick It's always good to keep in mind the distinction between better than average humans and better than best of humans. Still, for many real-world apps, better than avg human is meaningful
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
640d
@emollick On a quick read I can’t figure out much about the human subjects, but it looks like superhuman means better than an underpaid crowd worker, rather a true human fact checker? That makes the characterization misleading. (Like saying that 1985 chess software was superhuman).…
Ethan Mollick
@emollick
·
640d
AIs have a bad reputation for truth, so three important findings in this paper:
1) "LLM agents can achieve superhuman rating performance" on fact checking when given access to Google!
2) Bigger models are more factual
3) LLMs are 20x cheaper than humans
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.18802…

The statement is part of a critical discourse on the methodology and findings of a research paper. It questions the validity of the paper's claims and expresses skepticism about the comparison made between AI and human performance in fact-checking tasks. The tone is critical but not disrespectful, and the intent is to challenge the conclusions drawn in the paper.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to correct what the author perceives as a misleading claim, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm with words and 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 the dignity of others by focusing on the paper's methodology rather than attacking any individuals involved. [+1]
  3. 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 author engages in constructive criticism by pointing out a perceived flaw in the paper's approach, which promotes understanding. [+1]
  4. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement acknowledges a potential mistake in the paper's findings and calls for correction, aligning with the principle of acknowledging and correcting mistakes. [+1]