Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 114
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
313d
People are still giving me a hard time about saying that deep learning is hitting a wall. But this is the essence of the wall I was talking about and we are still stuck here:
10/4/2024, 10:58:02 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
313d
@stalkermustang @DannyMcAteer8 @tsarnick Brutal is how you are missing the forest for the trees, even though everyone from Sam to Demis to Yann now sees it.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
313d
@DannyMcAteer8 @tsarnick 1. Ask Bindu Reddy? or read my substack, where I review that article line by line – none of what I raised has been solved, not even with 01: https://garymarcus.substack.com/…
Igor Kotenkov
@stalkermustang
·
313d
@DannyMcAteer8 @tsarnick Brutal.
Dan McAteer
@DannyMcAteer8
·
313d
@tsarnick What happened to deep learning hitting a wall?
Tsarathustra
@tsarnick
·
313d
Gary Marcus says he believes OpenAI will become "the most Orwellian company of all time" because they will be forced to turn to surveillance in order to make money

The conversation involves a discussion on the limitations and future of deep learning, referencing a critique by Gary Marcus and a study on OpenAI's model. The discourse critiques the current state and potential future of AI, suggesting that deep learning may be reaching its limits. The tone is analytical and critical, engaging with public concerns about AI development and its implications.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm by focusing on technical critiques rather than personal attacks. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by engaging in a detailed analysis of AI limitations, encouraging informed 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, focusing on the technical aspects of AI rather than personal attacks. [+1]