Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
9/15/2024, 1:50:10 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
490d
@Leoagua1 That’s way better but we also don’t know what is trained on, we see many tasks with poor performance (some worse than 4o, as they acknowledge) and have seen examples before in which OAI has touted results on benchmarks (eg LSATs) that turned out not to be remotely robust.

If…
Leo 🔎🛡️⏸️🌐
@Leoagua1
·
490d
@GaryMarcus This is wrong. The connections problem in the paper you QT was mostly solved by o1-preview. There was no point in listening to you.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
567d
👇 The wall the deep learning has not been able to conquer, AKA what has and hasn’t changed in 12 years:

Marcus, 2012: techniques like deep learning have “no obvious ways of performing logical inferences, and they are also still a long way from integrating abstract knowledge”…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
491d
[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 @Leoagua1 constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive debate about the evaluation of AI performance, specifically addressing the context and methodology of benchmarking AI models. The tone is critical but not hostile, aiming to provide constructive feedback.

  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 the argument rather than attacking the individual. It maintains a respectful tone while providing critical feedback. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by pointing out a potential flaw in the argument and suggesting a broader context is needed. It encourages a more comprehensive analysis, which can lead to better understanding and empathy in the discussion. [+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 specific issue of focusing too much on a single benchmark. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]