Gary Marcus

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 62
3/29/2024, 9:58:37 PM
X
In reply to:
moon island
@islandinthemoon
·
540d
@GaryMarcus @s_batzoglou I should also say I agree with you that neuro-symbolic approaches are a critical path forward, but I don't think one makes a plausible case for this by crapping all over what everyone can see are major successes, especially compared to pure sym AI past results
moon island
@islandinthemoon
·
540d
@GaryMarcus @s_batzoglou protein folding is based on an attention-based neural network system, not symbolic AI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?si…

It's already clear that AI (including LLM AI) will be a massive productivity boost to software engineers

Creating public-domain image datasets is a trivial problem
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
540d
@islandinthemoon @s_batzoglou protein folding isn’t genAI and is neurosymbolic.

code quality and security has arguably gone down.

image synthesis is fine if you don’t care about copyright violation.
moon island
@islandinthemoon
·
540d
@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
·
540d
@s_batzoglou success like “making profits?” i missed that.
Serafim Batzoglou
@s_batzoglou
·
540d
@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.

The statement is part of a conversation on Twitter discussing the merits and criticisms of different approaches to artificial intelligence (AI), specifically large language models (LLMs) versus neuro-symbolic approaches. The tone is critical but engages in a substantive debate about AI development strategies, which constitutes public discourse. The intent is to argue against blind support for LLMs and to advocate for the consideration of alternative approaches in AI development.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to do no harm but is critical of the current AI development landscape, which could be perceived as harmful by those invested in LLMs.
  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 privacy and dignity of others 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 promotes understanding by highlighting the potential harm of ignoring alternative AI approaches. [+1]
  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 AI development field without personal attacks. [+1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    There is no indication of acknowledging or correcting mistakes in this statement.
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to advocate for a more diverse approach to AI development, which could be for the betterment of society. [+1]
  7. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech and uses the platform responsibly to engage in a substantive debate. [+1]