Gary Marcus

Rank 23 of 47

Score 29

@emollick I think you are overstating the results; they aren’t really “expert” human players. The result was strongest with weak amateurs, and they got no positive result even for the condition with max “expert” = 1500. They are NOT showing this works for grandmasters (eg 2600), let alone…

6/18/2024, 1:57:32 PM

In reply to:

Ethan Mollick

@emollick

455d

Awesome result on a way in which AIs can outperform all the individual human experts whose data it is trained on: the AI is effectively aggregating the wisdom of the expert crowd.

When trained on diverse expert knowledge, the AI acts like a majority vote, which beats individuals

The statement engages in public discourse by critically analyzing the claims made about AI performance in a research context. The tone is analytical and aims to clarify the limitations of the research findings.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement strives to do no harm and focuses on the accuracy of the research claims, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by providing a detailed critique of the research findings, which helps in fostering a more accurate understanding of the research. [+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 criticism by addressing the research claims directly and providing evidence from the research paper, avoiding personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]