Gary Marcus

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -50
6/26/2024, 3:57:50 AM
X
In reply to:
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
129d
@GaryMarcus My alternate bet suggestion is limited to LLMs (bc of the image that started the discussion), so it makes sense to limit the tasks, too, excluding the kitchen and elusive bug-free code.

In any case, I'm down to take your original bet on 3 out of 5 tasks for any AI by 2029.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
129d
@IgorKurganov Why are you leaving out 3 and 4? By arbitrary kitchen I meant something like “randomly chosen kitchens that ordinary people use”, so yes it ought to be constrained (eg you shouldn’t need scuba gear, or to operate in zero gravity, etc).

I’d be most inclined to take a bet if it…
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
129d
@GaryMarcus I’d take the bet you propose for AI.

Or, in the spirit of the OP, I’d bet on multimodal LLMs hitting the majority of 1, 2, 5 within four years.

Since we’re comparing to human capabilities, I’m sure you agree that e.g. the arbitrariness of the kitchen ought to be constrained.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
130d
@IgorKurganov Discussed here
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
131d
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…
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
130d
@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
·
130d
@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.

The statement engages in a substantive discussion about the capabilities and future potential of AI, specifically LLMs (Large Language Models) and AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). It is part of a broader debate on the limitations and advancements of AI technology, making it a part of public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is part of a constructive debate about AI capabilities. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by distinguishing between LLMs and AGI, contributing to a nuanced discussion about AI. [+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, responding to a previous comment and adding to the conversation without personal attacks. [+1]