Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
10/3/2024, 2:26:21 PM
X
In reply to:
Fred Mulligan
@Freds_Mulligans
·
277d
@paul_cal @DeryaTR_ @GaryMarcus Ahh yes you talking of the capabilities prediction for next year, not this one - well that's for the future to decide, I was obviously talking of his side bets about no new models better than 4 - sorry my man
Paul Calcraft
@paul_cal
·
277d
@Freds_Mulligans @DeryaTR_ @GaryMarcus Misread me I think. Unless you think by end of 2025 it will be false that "there will still be many cognitive things that smart humans can do that AI can't"? No way

I said Gary's financial pred would be wrong *even if* GPT4 hadn't been improved upon, yet it has - with o1
Fred Mulligan
@Freds_Mulligans
·
277d
@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
·
277d
@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_
·
278d
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 is part of a public discourse on AI development and predictions about future capabilities. The tone is corrective, aiming to clarify a previous statement about AI advancements. The conversation involves predictions about AI capabilities and financial valuations, which are relevant public issues.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and seeks to clarify a misunderstanding, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by clarifying a previous point, aligning with the principle of 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 dialogue by addressing a misunderstanding without resorting to personal attacks, aligning with the principle of constructive criticism. [+1]