Gary Marcus

Rank 24 of 47
|
Score 66
7/7/2024, 1:12:21 AM
X
In reply to:
Olivia P. Walker
@olivia_p_walker
·
108d
@GaryMarcus It’s still relatively early in its existence though. Does your post mean that you have no hope for the emerging Tech?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
108d
The truth can no longer be denied: Generative AI is a turning out to be dud — exactly like I have been saying, for nearly a year.
Jacob Silverman
@SilvermanJacob
·
110d
From a recent Goldman Sachs report on generative AI: limited $$ upside, capital intensive, can't solve complex problems, no killer app. The bull case is that they somehow figure it all out or simply that "bubbles take a long time to burst." [PDF]
https://web.archive.org/web/2024…

The statement 'Pure LLMs are hopeless; it will take years and maybe decades to deliver what had been promised. Not centuries.' is a critical response to a discussion about the potential and current limitations of generative AI. The tone is skeptical and somewhat dismissive, reflecting a lack of confidence in the technology's near-term prospects. The statement engages in public discourse by addressing a significant technological and economic issue, contributing to the broader debate on the future of AI.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as dismissive of the efforts of those working in the AI field. It does not promote understanding or empathy towards the challenges faced by AI developers. [-1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is critical without offering constructive feedback or acknowledging the complexities involved in AI development. [-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 criticism but does not do so constructively. It dismisses the potential of LLMs without providing a detailed rationale or engaging in a dialogue that could lead to a deeper understanding of the issues. [-1]