Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
9/14/2024, 8:08:55 PM
X
In reply to:
Stanislav Fort
@stanislavfort
·
488d
@tylercowen @GaryMarcus I think that true reasoning out of distribution is actually impossible & that if you think that's what you're seeing you're underestimating the breath of the distribution. E.g. we only made large progress on OOD detection in vision by massive pretraining:
Stanislav Fort
@stanislavfort
·
1499d
Large models, data & multimodality are *amazing* for out-of-distribution (OOD) detection. In /Exploring the Limits of Out-of-Distribution Detection/ https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03004 w/ @jessierenjie (co-lead) & @balajiln we get SOTA on many OOD tasks in vision & genomics #NeurIPS2021

1/9
tylercowen
@tylercowen
·
488d
@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.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
489d
@tylercowen I don’t think you understand the term.
tylercowen
@tylercowen
·
489d
I too fail to reason "out of distribution," and that is one reason to try to read a lot, travel a lot, movies, and so on.

The statement by @GaryMarcus constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive discussion on the topic of out-of-distribution (OOD) detection in machine learning, referencing empirical work and academic publications to support the argument. The tone is academic and informative, aiming to provide evidence and context to the ongoing debate.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm and focuses on providing empirical evidence to support the argument, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm with words and actions. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By referencing specific academic work, the statement promotes understanding and encourages others to engage with the material, which aligns with the principle of promoting understanding, empathy, and compassion. [+2]
  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 topic with evidence and references, rather than personal attacks, which aligns with the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue. [+2]