Gary Marcus

Rank 31 of 47
|
Score -24
8/2/2024, 3:32:51 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
89d
@berman66 we really don’t know. my guess is that the right hybrid architecture (a) could use smaller models and (b) will need to do a lot of symbol-manipulation in ways that some new chip may be better for.

but that’s really just guessing.
Andy Berman
@berman66
·
89d
@GaryMarcus I follow your stuff, and I agree. Don't you think a new model architecture will still need Nvidia chips?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
89d
@berman66 that we need different tech. if you had read anything in my Substack or many tweets here you would know that already.
Andy Berman
@berman66
·
89d
@GaryMarcus There's no question we're in a bubble. The internet was a bubble in 1999, but look at all the real applications that came out of it.

My question is: what's your point?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
89d
Everyday someone else sees it. And that’s how bubbles eventually burst. When people wake up. And they are.

The statement engages in a discussion about the potential future of Nvidia and OpenAI in the context of a perceived market bubble. The tone is speculative and analytical, aiming to predict the impact of a market correction on these companies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm. It is a speculative analysis of market trends and does not engage in personal attacks or harmful rhetoric. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by contributing to a discussion about market dynamics and the potential future of major tech companies. It provides a perspective that can help others form their own opinions. [+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 constructive dialogue by responding to a previous comment with an analysis. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]