Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
624d
What the reply guys never ever understand is that the problem is not that an LLM *always* gets a particular question wrong, it’s that you never ever know what you are getting.
5/28/2024, 4:38:24 PM
X
In reply to:
Harmony Hacker
@HarmonyHacker
·
624d
@modelsarereal @GaryMarcus Also the question itself is poorly worded, and could actually be mistaken for requesting a historical date. It's similar to asking "when is the first year that a woman could be elected president?"

Are we talking future here or a past date when women were allowed to run?
Matthias Heger - e/acc ⏩
@modelsarereal
·
624d
@GaryMarcus Their understanding of time depends on the training data. I could not answer the question you have given grok. But this does not prove that I do not understand time at all. You generalize from a few cherry picked example. This is not science but chatter.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
624d
Marcus and Davis, 2019: Statistical AI doesn’t understand time
Grok, 2024: No shit:

The statement by @HarmonyHacker addresses the clarity of a question posed in a public discussion about AI's understanding of time and historical context. The tone is constructive and aims to clarify the ambiguity in the original question, contributing to a more precise and meaningful dialogue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm and instead aims to clarify a potential misunderstanding, 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.
    By pointing out the ambiguity in the question, the statement promotes understanding and helps others to see the potential confusion, fostering empathy and compassion for those who might misinterpret the question. [+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 by addressing the wording of the question without attacking the person who asked it, thus adhering to the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue. [+1]