Gary Marcus

Rank 32 of 47
|
Score -1
4/3/2024, 10:42:57 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
227d
@DeryaTR_ people have been telling me that for years. but which of my older posts didn’t age well?

none of LeCun’s posts telling me about the limitations of LLMs aged well, for example. instead he know echoes the ones he said were “rear-guard”
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
227d
@GaryMarcus Unfortunately these posts won’t age well in few years …
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
227d
Most of the successful use cases in AI so far - web search, advertisement recognition, coding assistance, rough translation, etc, haven’t required near-perfect accuracy.

Most of the failures - L5 AV’s, domestic humanoid robots, general purpose agents, high-quality translation -…
Market Updates
@MarketUpdates7
·
227d
@lfstevens @GaryMarcus In technology, the final 1-2% is the most difficult part. First 95% can be done by average engineers, it takes geniuses and the creme of the creme engineers to execute the last 5%

The statement is part of a conversation about the development and limitations of AI technology, specifically in relation to accuracy and the challenges of the final stages of engineering. The tone is analytical and somewhat critical, with the intent to discuss the realistic expectations of AI advancements and the public figures' previous statements on the matter. The content engages with the public issue of AI development, which is a topic of societal relevance.

  1. 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]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement uses words to promote understanding of the complexities involved in AI technology development, showing a level of empathy for the challenges faced by engineers. [+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 statement engages in constructive criticism of public figures' past statements without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]