Gary Marcus

Rank 28 of 47
|
Score 15
8/2/2024, 2:37:17 PM
X
In reply to:
Jade Cole
@JadeCole2112
·
89d
@elander @GaryMarcus The thing is, the people saying this aren't stupid people - they are researchers in AI, successful business people, etc.

Some of this is also vision-casting - like what it WILL be able to do EVENTUALLY, but talking about it like it's imminent.
💙 Sexton 🏆🥇⭐️⭐️ 💙
@elander
·
89d
@GaryMarcus @JadeCole2112 I always quote George Carlin when people ask similar questions:

"Think of how stupid the average person is and then realize half of them are stupider than that!"

I call it "Carlin's razor".

Often good to combine with Hanlon's razor to calm ones nerves a bit.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
89d
@JadeCole2112 “Natural Stupidity”
Jade Cole
@JadeCole2112
·
89d
@GaryMarcus How can anyone look at these obvious errors and still think these LLMs are doing any kind of reasoning? It is wilful blindness.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
89d
Cᴏɴᴛᴇsᴛ!!!

Reply below with screenshots of your most hilarious goat/boat/wolf/river-crossing style problem LLM fails. Feel free to vary the classic problem however you like.

Winners will be included in an upcoming Marcus on AI newsletter, where I discuss what these fails…

The statement and the conversation it references engage in a discussion about the capabilities and limitations of AI, specifically large language models (LLMs). The tone is critical and somewhat humorous, aiming to highlight perceived flaws in AI reasoning. The statement also introduces the concept of a 'Now-vs-Later fallacy,' suggesting a deeper analysis of the issue. The conversation involves multiple participants and includes a humorous quote from George Carlin, which could be seen as dismissive but is intended to lighten the discussion.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement and the conversation it references do not appear to cause harm. The tone is critical but not malicious, and the humor is not directed at individuals but at the technology. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The conversation respects the privacy and dignity of others, focusing on AI and its limitations rather than attacking individuals. The use of humor is directed at the technology, not at people. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement and the conversation promote understanding by discussing the limitations of AI and encouraging critical thinking about its capabilities. The introduction of the 'Now-vs-Later fallacy' suggests a deeper analysis, which can foster empathy and compassion for those who may overestimate AI's current abilities. [+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 conversation engages in constructive criticism of AI technology. While the humor could be seen as dismissive, it does not constitute a personal attack or ad hominem argument. The participants are discussing the technology's limitations in a way that encourages dialogue and understanding. [+1]