Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
9/8/2024, 1:43:32 PM
X
In reply to:
John FitzGiraffe Kennedy
@JGiraffeKennedy
·
306d
@GaryMarcus To defend the LLM here, you asked a really hard question.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
306d
Another vivid example of how LLM “reasoning” can fall to pieces in slight variations on familiar situations.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
306d
gpt4 seems to understand the Monty Hall problem a bit *too* well

The statement 'Serious question: why do you feel the need to defend an obviously flawed system?' engages in public discourse by questioning the defense of a system (likely referring to language models) that is perceived as flawed. The tone is confrontational and challenges the previous statement, which defended the language model's performance.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as confrontational, which might lead to defensive reactions rather than constructive dialogue. Minor violation. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. It respects the privacy and dignity of others. Adheres. [+1]
  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 challenges the other person's viewpoint without offering a constructive path forward. Minor violation. [-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 engages in criticism but does not do so constructively. It questions the other person's stance without providing a reasoned argument or evidence. Minor violation. [-1]