Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 76
6/16/2024, 12:13:09 PM
X
In reply to:
Rob Bowley
@robbowley
·
512d
@GaryMarcus I share your view and posted something on LinkedIn recently to the same effect.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/r…

Folks replied saying things like knowledge graphs and neuro symbolic AI could mitigate against the limitations.

Would be keen for your view on such things (not an AI expert)
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
512d
What I think many people don’t get is that the problems generative AI that we are seeing now aren’t new; they aren’t random. They are *persistent*, e.g., neural networks have NEVER been reliable at negation, NEVER been reliable at compositional structure, and NEVER been good at…
T J
@TJ09299872
·
512d
@iancc_wip @GaryMarcus GenAI is pretty good at synthesizing concepts with a vast amount of training and therefore latent representation, but it's also trivial to come up with examples they cannot produce

The statement by @GaryMarcus and the subsequent conversation constitute public discourse as they engage in a substantive discussion about the limitations and future directions of AI technology, specifically generative AI and neurosymbolic AI. The conversation involves multiple participants sharing insights, critiques, and references to academic work, contributing to the broader dialogue on AI development and its societal implications.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement and conversation strive to do no harm and focus on constructive discussion about AI technology. There is no evidence of harmful language or intent. [+2]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The conversation promotes understanding and empathy by sharing knowledge and perspectives on AI limitations and potential solutions. The participants engage in a respectful exchange of ideas. [+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 dialogue is constructive, with participants asking for opinions, sharing resources, and avoiding personal attacks. The focus remains on the topic of AI and its challenges. [+2]