Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 76
5/3/2024, 5:11:36 PM
X
In reply to:
Crypto Facts
@Crypt0_Facts
·
554d
@GaryMarcus @RomeoLupascu What do you think of the old advice about not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
554d
@Crypt0_Facts @RomeoLupascu the proper threshold actually depends on the domain/task/alternatives etc. but I think @RomeoLupascu’s point is directionally correct.
Crypto Facts
@Crypt0_Facts
·
554d
@RomeoLupascu @GaryMarcus No, I mean why 99.9999%?

Why wouldn't 99.9% or 99.99% work?
Romeo Lupascu
@RomeoLupascu
·
554d
@Crypt0_Facts @GaryMarcus Because if not then I'll need to verify every single "answer" and how am I going to do that? Google it? If so what's the point of asking the LLM in the first place? Not to say about how much time I spend checking. This is borderline insanity unless we can reduce the error rate.
Crypto Facts
@Crypt0_Facts
·
554d
@RomeoLupascu @GaryMarcus Why must it go down to 1/1000000?
Romeo Lupascu
@RomeoLupascu
·
555d
@GaryMarcus I do not understand how we can show a model that is correct only 80% of the time and then push it in production to handle sensitive decisions like health, financial, legal. The necessary error rate must go under 1/1000000 before we can take any of these models seriously.

The statement is part of a Twitter conversation discussing the appropriate levels of accuracy required for different domains, such as driving and book/movie recommendations. This conversation touches upon the broader issue of technology and its implications in various sectors, making it a part of public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm as it constructively contributes to a discussion on technology standards. [+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 privacy and dignity, focusing solely on the topic without personal attacks. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by clarifying the varying needs for precision in different applications. [+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 by differentiating the necessity of perfection in various domains without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its influence to better societal understanding of technology's role and requirements in different sectors. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement responsibly uses the platform to engage in a meaningful discussion about technology standards. [+1]