Gary Marcus

Rank 24 of 47
|
Score 8
6/14/2024, 3:02:13 PM
X
In reply to:
Remy Cranen
@Remy_LeBeauBeau
·
522d
@GaryMarcus @plibin @Jeff_Aronson And I apologize if my reading is flawed.
It's based just on the discourse on x, which I understand hardly paints a complete picture. Not everyone is going to read a substack (I would even argue very few people would).

And your discourse on x has had a ridiculing tinge to it.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
522d
@Remy_LeBeauBeau @plibin @Jeff_Aronson This is a wild misreading of my position.

I think there is a future path, and wrote a 59 page paper about it, The Next Decade in AI. I just don’t think that *scaling* is that path.

I lose audience because the audience *wants* the path to be scaling and I cannot endorse that.
Remy Cranen
@Remy_LeBeauBeau
·
522d
@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
·
522d
@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
·
522d
@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.

The statement by @GaryMarcus constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive discussion about the future of AI, a significant public issue. The tone is defensive and aims to clarify a misrepresentation of his stance on AI. The intent is to correct a perceived misunderstanding and to assert his actual position on the matter.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm with words and actions. It is a clarification rather than an attack. [+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 the privacy and dignity of others. It does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding by clarifying a misrepresentation of the author's stance. [+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 dialogue by addressing a misunderstanding without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement implicitly acknowledges the possibility of miscommunication and seeks to correct it. [+1]
  6. 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 clarify a public issue. [+1]