Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
7/25/2024, 11:01:15 PM
X
In reply to:
Leon Lang
@Lang__Leon
·
347d
@GaryMarcus It seems to me like the creative backbone of AlphaProof is Gemini.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
347d
@Lang__Leon If you are asking that question you are missing the point. LLMs ≠ AlphaProof.
Leon Lang
@Lang__Leon
·
347d
@GaryMarcus To get more clarity on your position: if some company achieved AGI with a model whose whole creative backbone is an LLM, within five years from now, with an approach that is neurosymbolic similar to AlphaProof: Would you then think there were predictions you made that are wrong?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
347d
@Lang__Leon Not with these tools
Leon Lang
@Lang__Leon
·
347d
@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
·
347d
@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.

The statement 'Creative backbone is not a meaningful term; with that alone it won’t work.' is part of a broader discussion on the capabilities and limitations of language models (LLMs) and their role in achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI). The tone is critical and dismissive, aiming to challenge the validity of the term 'creative backbone' in the context of the conversation. The intent appears to be to clarify or refute a point made by another participant in the discussion.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm with words and actions. It is a critique of a term used in the discussion.
  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 explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on critiquing a specific term.
  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 engages in constructive criticism by challenging the use of a term. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]