Gary Marcus

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 91
10/3/2024, 2:13:28 PM
X
In reply to:
Fred Mulligan
@Freds_Mulligans
·
228d
@paul_cal @DeryaTR_ @GaryMarcus Is that you Gary? Or do you just look at everything through anti-AI glasses too

The models a) have got way better from 4, and are like 10x cheaper for the providers b) they now reason, meaning not only are they way better, they now smash all benchmarks Gary said were trollop c)…
Paul Calcraft
@paul_cal
·
228d
@DeryaTR_ @GaryMarcus He's right on his capabilities prediction and clearly wrong on his financial prediction. Pundits should gain some points for stating public quantifiable predictions. But even if no model better than GPT4 had been demonstrated, a 20% valuation hit on that timeline is wild
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
229d
Hey Gary @GaryMarcus, do you want to concede on our bet? 😊 Just admitting that you were wrong would be enough 😎

Alternatively, we could raise it 10x — I’m in! 😇

The statement engages in a debate about AI capabilities and predictions, critiquing the progress and addressing previous challenges. It questions the accuracy of others' claims while acknowledging some agreement on cost improvements.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement is critical but does not appear to cause harm, focusing on factual disagreements.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It maintains a level of respect, though it challenges the accuracy of others' statements.
  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, addressing specific points of disagreement without personal attacks. [+1]