Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
7/25/2024, 10:46:12 PM
X
In reply to:
Leon Lang
@Lang__Leon
·
348d
@GaryMarcus It seems like you’re then in large agreement with many proponents of LLMs. Yet, you seem to believe LLMs are largely hype and will not live up to their promise. Is the difference then that you believe companies won’t “in time” solve the more symbolic parts of the challenges?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
348d
@Lang__Leon It would be proof that we need a neurosymbolic approach and that pure LLMs don’t work on their own, and would thus be considerable vindication for my two strongest and longest held claims.
Leon Lang
@Lang__Leon
·
348d
@GaryMarcus In the case that these techniques work for general reasoning (with an appropriate replacement of the proof-checker in Lean): will you consider this a refutation or confirmation of your views on LLMs?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
349d
Neurosymbolic for another win!!!
Noam Brown
@polynoamial
·
349d
Very impressive result from @GoogleDeepMind! They convert hard math problems into the formal reasoning language Lean, and then use an AlphaZero-style approach to find solutions. This, combined with their earlier work on AlphaGeometry, scores a silver medal at the IMO. Congrats to…

The statement 'Not with these tools' by @Lang__Leon in response to a conversation about the capabilities and future of LLMs (Large Language Models) constitutes public discourse. The conversation involves a substantive engagement with public issues related to AI technology, its potential, and its limitations. The tone of the statement is dismissive, suggesting skepticism about the current tools' ability to solve the discussed challenges.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but its dismissive tone could be seen as unconstructive.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others; it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
  3. 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 dismissive and does not provide constructive feedback. [-1]
  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 statement does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, but it also does not contribute to constructive criticism or dialogue.
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech but does not use the platform to provide a responsible or constructive contribution to the discussion.