Gary Marcus

Rank 10 of 47
|
Score 132
12/20/2024, 2:59:22 PM
X
In reply to:
B.B
@keepcool0677
·
213d
@GaryMarcus As a teacher, I tested AVM with vision to explain and guide a student in solving an exercise. ChatGPT executed the task perfectly, providing clear and effective explanations to the student. While it may not be artificial general intelligence, it closely resembles it.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
213d
@keepcool0677 reliability and open-ended domains were literally at the center of my 2019 book.

that is the OPPOSITE of shifting goal posts.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
214d
@keepcool0677 not one person who has made that accusation has ever documented one goal post that I actually moved.

not one.
B.B
@keepcool0677
·
214d
@GaryMarcus https://x.com/keepcool0677/statu…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
214d
Three o3 predictions:
– People will initially be amazed
- Once they dive in, they will see that it is not reliable
- It will work best in closed-domains (like math problems) but less reliably in open-ended domains (like everyday reasoning about the real world).

The statement '100% of anecdotal data like this is anecdotal' is a response in a conversation about the reliability and capabilities of AI, specifically ChatGPT, in educational settings. The tone is somewhat dismissive, highlighting the subjective nature of anecdotal evidence. The intent seems to be to critique or downplay the significance of the anecdotal evidence presented by @keepcool0677 regarding AI's performance.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as dismissive, which might undermine constructive dialogue.
  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 a form of critique but does not provide constructive feedback or engage in a meaningful dialogue about the issue at hand. [-1]