Gary Marcus

Rank 21 of 47

Score 45

@NicholasorAI @iamtrask @RyanPGreenblatt @fchollet For sure. That’s part of why I wrote this:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.06177

6/18/2024, 3:00:39 AM

In reply to:

Nicholas

@NicholasorAI

456d

@iamtrask @RyanPGreenblatt @GaryMarcus @fchollet @GaryMarcus I hope and trust that the skepticism applied to LLMs be equally applied to often naive, reflexive claims about neurosymbolic alternatives. Slapping some logic rules on an LLM does not resolve the fundamental problems inherent in either approach. @iamtrask

Andrew Trask

@iamtrask

456d

Useful stuff. @RyanPGreenblatt is a smart guy....

....but about this #meme.

This meme throws shade at neurosymbolic AI folks (@GaryMarcus / etc.)

It implies that "drawing more samples" proves that LLMs don't need symbolic stuff

... but then the article proceeds to do a…

Buck Shlegeris

@bshlgrs

457d

ARC-AGI’s been hyped over the last week as a benchmark that LLMs can’t solve. This claim triggered my dear coworker Ryan Greenblatt so he spent the last week trying to solve it with LLMs. Ryan gets 71% accuracy on a set of examples where humans get 85%; this is SOTA.

The statement and the preceding conversation constitute public discourse as they engage in a substantive debate about the future of artificial intelligence (AI) and the merits of different AI approaches. The tone is professional and aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion about AI methodologies.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement strives to do no harm and contributes constructively to the debate by sharing a relevant research paper. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by providing a resource that elaborates on the author's perspective on AI. [+1]
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 the points raised in the conversation and offering additional information without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]