Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
10/3/2024, 3:18:26 PM
X
In reply to:
Rob S.
@RobS142
·
283d
@GaryMarcus @Wharrgarbl42 @DeryaTR_ Maybe but it's not clear the other frontier companies would be doing this and the competitive open source models certainly aren't so it's somewhat hard to imagine OpenAI doing this kind of thing just to eek out a slight edge over them.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
283d
@RobS142 @Wharrgarbl42 @DeryaTR_ I think it goes far beyond that, perhaps into regex’s to particular case:, the RLHF itself isn’t exactly a standard notion of MoE, same with O1 add-ons
Rob S.
@RobS142
·
283d
@Wharrgarbl42 @DeryaTR_ @GaryMarcus This is word salad. It was never "a model" we always knew it was a MoE...
wharrgarbl
@Wharrgarbl42
·
283d
@DeryaTR_ @GaryMarcus The secret behind the scenes:

OpenAI GPT is no longer a model.

That's why it's closed source.

It is a system. It's a giant integration of half-baked specialist models cobbled together into one big lie.
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
283d
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 broader discussion about OpenAI's strategies and the nature of its models, which involves public discourse on AI development and corporate practices. The tone is dismissive, suggesting a lack of understanding or imagination on the part of others.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but dismisses others' perspectives, which could be seen as unconstructive.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks empathy and understanding, as it dismisses the difficulty others might have in imagining the scenario. [-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 does not engage in constructive dialogue and instead dismisses the previous comment without offering substantial critique. [-1]