Gary Marcus

Rank 33 of 47

Score -1

@AdanBecerraPhD @bilawalsidhu that’s a wild and misleading oversimplification of the (real) challenges with p thresholds. but you really can’t make the argument that this is decisively better than 4o, regardless of your philosophy of statistics.

6/20/2024, 4:38:34 PM

In reply to:

Adan Z Becerra, PhD

@AdanBecerraPhD

151d

@GaryMarcus @bilawalsidhu Statistical significance is irrelevant since it is based on an arbitrary threshold of p<0.05.

But I see your point. Are the differences technologically significant is what I would want to know?

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

151d

@bilawalsidhu Are these differences even statistically significant? (And how much is teaching ti the test? and are the small gains economically worthwhile if the models get bigger?)

Bilawal Sidhu

@bilawalsidhu

152d

We really gonna be switching LLMs on a bi-weekly basis at this point lol

The statement engages in a substantive discussion about the use of p-value thresholds in statistical significance, which is a relevant topic in the field of statistics and data analysis. The tone is critical but not disrespectful, aiming to correct what the author perceives as a misleading oversimplification. The intent appears to be to promote a more nuanced understanding of statistical significance and its challenges.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement strives to do no harm by focusing on the argument rather than attacking individuals. It aims to correct a perceived misunderstanding, which can be seen as a constructive contribution to the discussion. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by challenging an oversimplification and encouraging a more nuanced view of statistical significance. However, it could be more empathetic in its delivery. [+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 argument rather than the person. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]