Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
9/14/2024, 4:32:07 PM
X
In reply to:
Cameron Williams
@Wasgo
·
486d
@GaryMarcus Which makes it different than the incremental progress you had predicted for their next model.

It’s an interesting thing as o1 isn’t a paradigm shift as it’s built over the existing 4o model, but it’s not an incremental improvement that had been expected either.
Cameron Williams
@Wasgo
·
486d
@GaryMarcus Because o1 has improved through structured output, it masks hallucinations and overfitting in ways that makes it look like progress is happening on those problems in the generative model.

So people now wrongly think those issues are more solvable than you previously claimed.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
486d
@Wasgo to help me calibrate better, can you spell out more the things where I have been wrong?
Cameron Williams
@Wasgo
·
486d
@GaryMarcus I think people get confused between your predictions of how growth will happen (where you’ve been occasionally wrong) and the limits of the current model (where you haven’t).

Because of that, people think you’re changing your goalposts to claim you’re not wrong (you haven’t).
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
486d
[reposting to allow public comment]

People keep saying, “@garymarcus, you’ve been wrong about a lot of things, but you never admit it.”

The second part is clearly false. I recently co-wrote an article about getting the Winograd Schemas problem wrong, for example, and I have…

The statement by @GaryMarcus constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive discussion about the development and limitations of language models (LLMs), which is a topic of public interest in the field of artificial intelligence.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions. It is a technical critique rather than a personal attack. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to clarify misunderstandings and promote a more accurate understanding of the progress and limitations of LLMs, which aligns with promoting understanding and empathy. [+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 the technical aspects of the discussion without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  4. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement implicitly acknowledges the possibility of mistakes by engaging in a dialogue about the accuracy of previous claims. [+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 responsibly to discuss a relevant public issue with integrity. [+1]