Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 114
9/13/2024, 3:12:35 PM
X
In reply to:
Leon Lang
@Lang__Leon
·
330d
@GaryMarcus @tegmark I don’t understand the appeal of pointing to a lack of specific capabilities like “play tic-tac-toe”. As long as there is progress on benchmarks, capabilities increase, and should eventually also include tic-tac-toe.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
330d
@tegmark Max @tegmark you are just giving more power to the companies you rightly want to regulate by playing into their hype.

The new system can’t even play chess or tic-tac-toe reliably.
Max Tegmark
@tegmark
·
331d
OpenAI’s first 🍓-model is finally out and I’m impressed by its math. Guess: they’re staging the rollout to be less jarring and avoid getting regulated.
Noam Brown
@polynoamial
·
331d
Today, I’m excited to share with you all the fruit of our effort at @OpenAI to create AI models capable of truly general reasoning: OpenAI's new o1 model series! (aka 🍓) Let me explain 🧵 1/

The statement engages in a substantive discussion about the progress and limitations of AI capabilities, particularly in relation to benchmarks and generalization. It critiques the notion that improvements in benchmarks necessarily translate to broader capabilities, suggesting a more nuanced view of AI development.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm and instead contributes to a more nuanced understanding of AI capabilities. It challenges the assumption that benchmark improvements equate to overall capability improvements, which can help prevent overhyped expectations. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by highlighting the distinction between benchmark performance and general capabilities. This can foster a more informed and realistic view of AI progress. [+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 criticism by addressing a specific point in the conversation and providing a reasoned argument. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]