Gary Marcus

Rank 16 of 47
|
Score 79
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
537d
Prediction: By end of 2024 we will see
• 7-10 GPT-4 level models
• No massive advance (no GPT-5, or disappointing GPT-5)
• Price wars
• Very little moat for anyone
• No robust solution to hallucinations
• Modest lasting corporate adoption
• Modest profits, split 7-10 ways
9/14/2024, 12:25:40 AM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
349d
@tylercowen Still incredibly empty and nonspecific. My predictions of the following have all been correct, and generally doubted when initially made

Tendency towards hallucinations (2001 for deep learning in general, 2019 LLMs)
Tendency towards erratic reasoning (2001 and 2019 respectively)…
tylercowen
@tylercowen
·
349d
@GaryMarcus If someone wanted to understand the last say five to seven years in AI, and how they have unfolded, your earlier writings simply are not where anyone gets sent. No one contests that.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
349d
@tylercowen That is so empty it’s beneath you. Given me actual things I said, with quotes or sources, that have been proven wrong.
tylercowen
@tylercowen
·
349d
@GaryMarcus You've been on a losing streak as of late.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
349d
@tylercowen Show me one of my predictions that has failed, aside from the specific test of the Winograd schema. I can given you dozens that have held strong for 20 years, almost with their origin in an understanding of distribution shift.
tylercowen
@tylercowen
·
349d
@GaryMarcus I observe that many people think they understand the term better than they do, and they use it to justify unduly pessimistic predictions that mostly have failed.

The statement in question is part of a broader conversation about the accuracy of predictions in the field of AI, specifically between Gary Marcus and Tyler Cowen. This conversation involves public figures discussing substantive issues related to AI development, making it a form of public discourse. The tone of the statement is critical and challenges the previous assertions made by Tyler Cowen, demanding more specific examples to support his claims.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the critical tone could be seen as confrontational.
  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 remains focused on the topic at hand.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on challenging the previous statement.
  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 constructive criticism by asking for specific examples to support the claims made. However, the tone could be perceived as somewhat dismissive. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform to engage in a substantive debate about AI predictions. [+1]