Gary Marcus

Rank 24 of 47
|
Score 8
6/14/2024, 2:29:11 PM
X
In reply to:
Remy Cranen
@Remy_LeBeauBeau
·
523d
@plibin @GaryMarcus @Jeff_Aronson There's also a fine line between pointing out flaws and being an adversarial advocate that can't see any potential future path without leaving any wiggle room.
And I think that's the domain Gary often places himself in, which makes him lose audience.
Maybe he doesn't care though.
Phil Libin
@plibin
·
523d
@Remy_LeBeauBeau @GaryMarcus @Jeff_Aronson I hope this is true, though there’s a fine line between motivation and wasteful hype. In either case, pointing out flaws and suggesting improvements is worthwhile work.
Remy Cranen
@Remy_LeBeauBeau
·
523d
@plibin @GaryMarcus @Jeff_Aronson I agree that it is an open question whether LLMs will have eventual lasting utility, however even if it doesn't lead to AGI (architecturally), it is fueling the motivation to race towards it AGI (financially and investment in compute wise).
Phil Libin
@plibin
·
523d
@Remy_LeBeauBeau @GaryMarcus @Jeff_Aronson I like the tech and hate the hype. I think it’s an open question of whether LLMs are an on-ramp, detour, or dead end on the path to AGI. I hope it’s the former, but suspect that it isn’t.
Remy Cranen
@Remy_LeBeauBeau
·
523d
@GaryMarcus @Jeff_Aronson @plibin This sounds earnest and it makes me curious why you are so adversarial to current systems. I don't think the majority of people think LLMs are the Endgame, but it does often feel like you claim this is what the general opinion is.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
523d
@Jeff_Aronson @plibin I think we will use AI (though perhaps not LLMs) all that time then and laugh at GPT-4

The statement by @GaryMarcus constitutes public discourse as it engages substantively with the public issue of AI development and the debate around the future path of AI, particularly in relation to scaling and large language models (LLMs). The tone is defensive yet informative, aiming to clarify a misinterpretation of his position and to contribute to the ongoing discussion about AI's future.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm with words and actions. It is a clarification of a position rather than an attack. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by explaining the author's viewpoint and referencing a detailed paper for further reading. [+2]
  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 addressing a misreading without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+2]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly to contribute to a significant public debate. [+2]