Gary Marcus

Rank 16 of 47
|
Score 66
3/29/2024, 8:10:49 PM
X
In reply to:
moon island
@islandinthemoon
·
541d
@GaryMarcus @s_batzoglou success like:
code-writing assistance
text-writing assistance
image-creation assistance
sound/music assistance
to say nothing of protein folding, etc

Sym AI has nothing remotely close in any of those domains
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
541d
@s_batzoglou success like “making profits?” i missed that.
Serafim Batzoglou
@s_batzoglou
·
541d
@GaryMarcus To be fair, what makes LLMs popular for investment is their spectacular success. Symbolic AI hasn’t had any similar wins for a long time. Once a win occurs, money will pour in.
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 artificial intelligence, specifically discussing the success and application of different AI approaches like LLMs (Large Language Models) and symbolic AI. The tone is critical and informative, and the intent seems to be to contribute to a technical debate about AI technologies and their implications, including aspects like code quality, security, and copyright issues.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to intend harm but does critique the quality and security of certain AI technologies, which could be seen as harmful to those who work on them.
  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 does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does contribute to a technical discussion which could lead to a better understanding of AI technologies.
  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 AI technologies without personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to contribute to a technical debate, which could be seen as working towards the betterment of society by fostering informed discussions about technology. [+1]