Gary Marcus

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 63
8/3/2024, 7:42:15 PM
X
In reply to:
Lucho
@LucianoKay
·
411d
@Nick_Davidov @GaryMarcus Following you both—very instructive conversation. If I may, we’ve seen smth similar with other emerging tech, I believe, general purpose too eg., nanotech. It once was the trillion dollar tech, now doesn’t get the focus of the press. But it’s everywhere, materials, coatings, etc.
Nick Davidov
@Nick_Davidov
·
411d
@GaryMarcus Your logic in the post uses arbitrary approach like “modest”. There is in fact a lot of business being built on LLMs and enterprises accept RAG and grounding as a robust solution to hallucinations. We have invested in about 50 companies that use LLMs as a part of their core…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
411d
@Nick_Davidov acting like i learned nothing relevant in my time in the academy and startups doesn’t explain why my predictions have been so reliably on target, does it? did you read the Substack article? disagree with any of the logic? or are we going to talk credentials all day?
Nick Davidov
@Nick_Davidov
·
411d
@GaryMarcus This is an impressive PR profile, but doesn’t provide evidence of why you have acumen in investments and economics. I don’t write wired articles about symbolic systems because I’m no expert in them, despite seeing them as an adjacent field for 15 years.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
412d
@Nick_Davidov You can read my new substack article to see what i think will follow. Re bona fides, I don’t think it is remotely outside my expertise. Here’s why (from that article):
Nick Davidov
@Nick_Davidov
·
412d
@GaryMarcus What’s the point of this article Gary? It might be a bit outside of your field of expertise, so I’m wondering why

The statement 'i don’t think GenAI will disappear' is part of a broader conversation about the future of generative AI (GenAI) and its comparison to other emerging technologies. The discussion involves multiple participants sharing their perspectives on the sustainability and impact of GenAI, making it a substantive engagement with a public issue. The tone is analytical and the intent is to contribute to the ongoing debate about the future of AI technologies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm and is a respectful contribution to the discussion, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding and empathy by engaging in a thoughtful discussion about the future of GenAI, aligning with the principle of using words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion. [+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 without personal attacks, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement. [+1]