Gary Marcus

Rank 18 of 47
|
Score 58
12/19/2024, 4:31:07 PM
X
In reply to:
Santiago
@svpino
·
276d
@IntuitMachine @TheMysteryDrop @GaryMarcus I am not sure I understand your reply, but my point is that O1 is not an LLM but a much more complex system.

I was responding to @TheMysteryDrop, who was arguing that O1's quality proves that an LLM can get far beyond what we thought possible before.
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 is part of a technical discussion about the nature and capabilities of AI systems, specifically addressing whether a system referred to as 'O1' is a pure LLM or a more complex hybrid. The tone is analytical and seeks to clarify misunderstandings in the conversation.

  1. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by clarifying the nature of the AI system being discussed, contributing to a more informed dialogue. [+1]
  2. 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 point of confusion without resorting to personal attacks or dismissive language. [+1]