Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 83
5/21/2024, 7:22:01 PM
X
In reply to:
Chaitin's goose
@chaitinsgoose
·
621d
@GaryMarcus @kevin_scott as there is no well-defined y axis, don't you think that any bet outcome would implicitly boil down to disagreeing on that? i'm more on your side than on that of people on the hype train re:the correct metric to use, but that's worth noticing
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
622d
Dear Microsoft CTO @Kevin_Scott,

Want to put money on what you just said?

$100,000?

— @GaryMarcus
Andrew Curran
@AndrewCurran_
·
622d
'we are nowhere near the point of diminishing marginal returns on how powerful we can make AI models as we increase the scale of compute'

The statement engages in a technical discussion about the appropriate metrics for evaluating AI models, specifically in the context of a debate about the impact of compute power on AI capabilities. The tone is analytical and aims to clarify the criteria for assessment, contributing to a broader conversation about AI development and evaluation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm and focuses on a technical clarification, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm with words and actions. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by addressing a specific aspect of the debate, which is the need for a measure that matches the text rather than the image. This helps in fostering a more informed discussion. [+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 dialogue by providing a reasoned argument without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]