Gary Marcus

Rank 27 of 47
|
Score 48
6/30/2024, 4:02:18 PM
X
In reply to:
reza yazdanfar
@reza__yazdanfar
·
117d
@GaryMarcus What should we do then?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
117d
👇 The wall the deep learning has not been able to conquer, AKA what has and hasn’t changed in 12 years:

Marcus, 2012: techniques like deep learning have “no obvious ways of performing logical inferences, and they are also still a long way from integrating abstract knowledge”…
Abeba Birhane
@Abebab
·
118d
for all the hype, this recent work shows that LLMs are not good at abstract reasoning https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11012

The statement and the conversation it is part of constitute public discourse as they engage in a substantive discussion about the capabilities and limitations of artificial intelligence, specifically deep learning and large language models (LLMs). The conversation includes references to academic papers and empirical data, contributing to the civic dialogue on the future of AI and its societal implications.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm and is focused on sharing information and research findings, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding and empathy by providing a link to a research paper that offers a detailed analysis of AI's capabilities and limitations. This helps to inform the public and foster a more nuanced understanding of the topic. [+2]
  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 responding to a question with a reference to a research paper, thereby contributing to an informed discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+2]