Gary Marcus

Rank 26 of 47
|
Score 19
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
134d
People keep complaining that there is no definition and criteria for AGI.

That’s not true.

I actually gave some in 2023, in a bet I proposed to Elon Musk, & vetted with the community, including two of people that helped coined the term, and *there was a large degree of…
6/25/2024, 3:49:20 AM
X
In reply to:
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
132d
@GaryMarcus My claim is that I think skeptics, including you, are likely wrong about specific abilities they expect LLMs to not have in 2 or 4 years.

Given that I say an LLM probably can do it, it makes sense for you to point at an example you think it won’t be able to do in 2 or 4 years.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
133d
@IgorKurganov I am not seeing the bet or the claim as of yet, and would note that some studies show quality and security of code is decreasing.
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
133d
@GaryMarcus Coding has improved a lot over the last two years and that’s without incoming much larger training runs.

Happy to structure a bet if we can find specific LLM abilities we disagree on whether they exist in 2 or 4 years.

Which challenges humans do on a computer come to mind?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
133d
@IgorKurganov It might have one or two more, but even one more doubling is somewhat in doubt. What’s your measure? Seems like nothing is really noticeably better than GPT-4 in almost two years, despite huge investments, and costs (data, $, environmentally) themselves may be increasing…
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
133d
@GaryMarcus I claim this baby hasn’t doubled for the last time just yet.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
133d
@IgorKurganov Call me when your trillion pound baby arrives

The statement and the conversation it is part of constitute public discourse as they engage in a substantive debate about the future capabilities of large language models (LLMs) and artificial general intelligence (AGI). The tone is generally respectful and focused on the topic at hand, with some lighthearted elements such as the humorous image included. The discussion involves a challenge to make predictions about technological advancements, which is a relevant public issue in the field of AI.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The conversation strives to do no harm and is focused on a technical debate rather than personal attacks. [+2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The participants respect each other's privacy and dignity, engaging in a professional and respectful manner. [+2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The dialogue promotes understanding and empathy by encouraging a constructive debate about the future of AI. [+2]
  4. 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 participants engage in constructive criticism and dialogue, avoiding personal attacks and focusing on the topic. [+2]