Gary Marcus

Rank 33 of 47
|
Score -20
6/25/2024, 2:05:55 AM
X
In reply to:
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
133d
@GaryMarcus If compared to humans, LLM capabilities, their benefits and risks, are better thought of relative to what a human can do on a computer (e.g. a remote worker), rather than to a human wandering around the world.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
133d
@IgorKurganov - That is so close to being a superset I honestly missed the few stray pixels the first time through. “Virtual subset”? “all but a subset”?
- what do you really mean by the latter? How can you judge? It doesn’t seem to me that skeptics really frame things re “humans on…
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
133d
@GaryMarcus Is this bait?

- distinctly drawn to not be a superset
- explicitly about humans on computers rather than humans overall
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
133d
It is pure fantasy to think pure LLMs will ever do a superset of what humans do—fantasy that is not grounded in an understanding of what they do and how they work.
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
133d
LLM skeptics be like

The statement engages in a substantive discussion about the capabilities and limitations of large language models (LLMs) in comparison to human abilities, particularly in the context of using computers. The tone is analytical and seeks to clarify a point about the interaction between humans and LLMs.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm and is focused on a technical discussion, thus adhering to the principle of striving to do no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by attempting to clarify the role and utility of LLMs in conjunction with human capabilities, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding, empathy, and compassion. [+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 by addressing a point made in a previous comment without resorting to personal attacks, thus adhering to the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]