Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 76
6/15/2024, 8:12:41 PM
X
In reply to:
Tess Hegarty
@thegartsy
·
515d
@GaryMarcus I mean, that’s one hypothesis. Among others.

I can tell you can spot this fallacy in others from the link below, but I still don’t see how you are not doing essentially the same thing in favor of your own favored theory?

Here you overconfidently say “lack of reliable world…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
515d
@elonmusk @hiconcep @geoffreyhinton 1. Hinton actually makes a serious logical error: he says we know for sure that if we make LLMs bigger they will get better. We don't actually *know* that. It's been almost two years since GPT-4 was trained, nobody has been able to significantly outdo it. OpenAI recently…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
515d
👇 Devastating new paper. The lack of reliable world models will forever hobble LLMs (exactly as I conjectured in 2019).
Peter Jansen
@peterjansen_ai
·
516d
Can language models be used as world simulators? In our ACL 2024 paper, we show -- not really.

GPT-4 is only ~60% accurate at simulating state changes based on common-sense tasks, like boiling water.

Preprint: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.06485
@allen_ai @MSFTResearch @aclmeeting

The statement by @thegartsy engages in a substantive discussion about the limitations of language models (LLMs) and their ability to serve as world simulators. It references past analyses and predictions, and compares them to other hypotheses and predictions in the field. This constitutes public discourse as it addresses a significant issue in AI research and development.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm. It is a technical critique based on past analysis and predictions, and it does not engage in personal attacks or harmful rhetoric. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by referencing past analyses and predictions, and it encourages a comparison of different hypotheses. This can foster a deeper understanding of the limitations and potential of LLMs. [+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 questioning the validity of other hypotheses and predictions. It does not engage in personal attacks but rather focuses on the technical aspects of the debate. [+1]