Gary Marcus

Rank 16 of 47
|
Score 68
3/29/2024, 7:36:56 PM
X
In reply to:
Steve Chambers
@4thWaveStevie
·
541d
@GaryMarcus Reminds me of all the years wasted on string theory in physics
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
541d
When future historians look back at why AGI was so slow to materialize, the main thing they will dwell on is how intellectually myopic the field was in the GenAI era.

Stunning lack of intellectual diversification.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
541d
Many people: Sure, LLM’s still suck & they are brittle (lots of silly errors) but we haven’t given them a fair shake because we have not yet spent $100B/$7T on them.

Same people: We spent $1-2B on symbolic/neurosymbolic AI and they are brittle. Those ideas will never work.

🤔

The statement is part of a conversation about the progress and direction of artificial general intelligence (AGI) and scientific theories. It reflects on past scientific approaches and their perceived effectiveness, which is a topic of public interest in the context of technological development and scientific research. The tone seems to be critical of certain scientific theories or approaches, and the intent appears to be to contribute to a discussion about the allocation of resources and intellectual diversity in the field of AGI.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not seem to intend harm but is critical of certain scientific approaches, which could be seen as dismissive of their value or the effort invested in them. [-1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not directly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does contribute to a broader discussion about scientific progress, which could indirectly foster understanding of the challenges in the field.
  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 statement engages in criticism of scientific theories but does not appear to engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. It stays focused on the topic of intellectual diversification in AGI research. [+1]