Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 76
6/16/2024, 1:32:41 AM
X
In reply to:
Bill Hunt
@BillHuntBits
·
513d
@GaryMarcus @SilverHollowsz @WashburneAlex Quite a leap yet from LLM to anything that can. But I would imagine there are a lot of efforts to solve those roadblocks.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
513d
@BillHuntBits @SilverHollowsz @WashburneAlex The number one factor is the architecture itself, which lacks coherent world models and the ability to check its own work.
Bill Hunt
@BillHuntBits
·
513d
@GaryMarcus @SilverHollowsz @WashburneAlex It seems to me that data and energy are the two critical limiting factors. Perhaps a third would be: available processors.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
513d
@SilverHollowsz @BillHuntBits @WashburneAlex Mostly on target except for one blunder:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
513d
@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…
Paula Chandler
@SilverHollowsz
·
513d
@BillHuntBits @WashburneAlex @GaryMarcus Your thoughts?
Bill Hunt
@BillHuntBits
·
513d
This is by far the smartest take on Artificial Intelligence (AI)—where it is, where it’s going, and how we should think about it—that I’ve seen yet. It’s 14 minutes very worth watching.

The statement in question is part of a broader conversation about the limitations and challenges of current AI technologies, specifically Large Language Models (LLMs). It critiques the effectiveness of current solutions, suggesting they are merely 'band-aids' that do not address the underlying issues. The tone is critical but not hostile, and the intent appears to be to contribute to a technical discussion about AI development.

  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 critique of technology, not individuals, and thus aligns with this principle. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does contribute to a technical discussion which can be seen as promoting understanding within that context.
  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 of technological solutions without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, thus adhering to this principle. [+1]