Gary Marcus

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 41
6/18/2024, 3:15:17 AM
X
In reply to:
Nicholas
@NicholasorAI
·
456d
@GaryMarcus @iamtrask @RyanPGreenblatt @fchollet How would you respond to those who contend that hybridity may not be the best alternative? Modularity, some contend, is equally, or more compelling; though one may read modularity as a genus of which hybrid it is the species.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
456d
@NicholasorAI @iamtrask @RyanPGreenblatt @fchollet For sure. That’s part of why I wrote this:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.06177
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 'I am a fan of modularity; these aren’t mutually contradictory.' is a response in a technical discussion about artificial intelligence methodologies, specifically addressing the debate between modularity and hybridity in AI systems. The tone is neutral and constructive, aiming to clarify a point rather than attack or criticize others.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm and maintains a respectful tone, contributing positively to the discussion. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by clarifying that modularity and hybridity are not mutually exclusive, fostering a more nuanced view of the topic. [+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 dialogue without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]