Gary Marcus

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 60
12/19/2024, 4:20:01 PM
X
In reply to:
MindMirror
@TheMysteryDrop
·
276d
@IntuitMachine @svpino @GaryMarcus @GaryMarcus do you view O1 as a vindication of going beyond old LLM architecture or still view O1 as the child of a flawed paradigm with a low ceiling?
Carlos E. Perez
@IntuitMachine
·
276d
@svpino @TheMysteryDrop @GaryMarcus Why would anyone artificially tie their hands behind the backs to prioritize the purity of categorization? This is bordering on insane. Of course there are all kinds of algorithms that are used to train these systems and facilitate the generation. We aren't in the business to…
Santiago
@svpino
·
276d
@TheMysteryDrop @GaryMarcus O1 pro is not an LLM... so there's that.
MindMirror
@TheMysteryDrop
·
276d
@GaryMarcus So what is the limit practically speaking?

I feel like I am surging past every boundary with O1-pro.

Perhaps we will hit one in the future but my on-the-ground feeling is that there is no short term limit to the utility.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
276d
@TheMysteryDrop yes!
MindMirror
@TheMysteryDrop
·
276d
@GaryMarcus Your argument is that without innovations in the underlying architecture (e.g. neurosymbolic) there are hard constraints on the ceiling of how useful AI can be… is that a steelman of your view?

The statement engages in a discussion about the limitations and potential of AI architectures, specifically LLMs, and suggests the need for a revolutionary change. It critiques the current paradigm and offers a perspective on the future of AI development, contributing to the public discourse on AI technology.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and maintains a neutral tone, adhering to 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 discussing the limitations and potential of AI, encouraging a broader perspective on the issue. [+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 of the current AI paradigm without resorting to personal attacks, adhering to the principle of constructive dialogue. [+1]