Gary Marcus

Rank 32 of 47
|
Score 0
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
146d
@manicprone @lexfridman 1. He is implying there is no obvious ceiling I a sight but I see a lot of evidence that we have reached a period of diminishing returns
2. he is implying that last year’s advance are of the same order of magnitude as previous years but they aren’t
6/21/2024, 12:57:43 AM
X
In reply to:
C B Miller
@sisboombahbah
·
146d
@GaryMarcus @lexfridman He’s asking a question. How can you disagree with a question? He may agree with you. I’m starting to agree with you that we might be near a ceiling. But are you denying the advances over the past year? That’s like denying Biden’s cognitive decline. (Yes, I’m voting for him.)
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
146d
Could not disagree with @lexfridman more strongly, and invite him to debate the prospects for LLMs.

The fact is that we have had a dozen models since GPT-4 and none is markedly better, despite over $50 billon invested.

We may have *already* gotten very close to the ceiling.…

The statement and the surrounding conversation constitute public discourse as they engage in a substantive debate about the advancements and limitations of large language models (LLMs), which is a significant topic in the field of artificial intelligence. The discussion involves multiple participants expressing differing viewpoints, which contributes to the civic dialogue on technological progress and its implications.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement and the conversation overall strive to do no harm. The participants are engaging in a debate about a technical topic without resorting to harmful language or personal attacks. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The conversation promotes understanding and empathy by encouraging a discussion on the advancements and potential limitations of LLMs. The participants are trying to understand each other's viewpoints and provide evidence for their positions. [+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 conversation engages in constructive criticism and dialogue. While there are disagreements, the participants are focusing on the technical aspects and evidence rather than engaging in personal attacks. [+1]