Gary Marcus

Rank 33 of 47
|
Score -1
6/20/2024, 4:44:04 PM
X
In reply to:
Adan Z Becerra, PhD
@AdanBecerraPhD
·
151d
@GaryMarcus @bilawalsidhu If you want a thorough understanding of challenges with statistical significance, see the petition we signed in Nature below:

And yes, I wasn’t implying that this is decisively better than 4o. Was just noting limitations with p values.

https://www.nature.com/articles/…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
151d
@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.
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
·
151d
We really gonna be switching LLMs on a bi-weekly basis at this point lol

The statement engages in a discussion about the limitations and challenges of statistical significance, which is a substantive public issue in the field of statistics and scientific research. The tone is critical but aims to move the conversation forward by discouraging excessive complaining that leads to nihilism.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to do no harm by encouraging a constructive approach to discussing statistical issues, rather than descending into nihilism. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by acknowledging the issues but also calls for a more productive discourse. [+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 criticism by addressing the tone of the conversation and suggesting a more balanced approach. [+1]