Gary Marcus

Rank 10 of 47
|
Score 110
12/20/2024, 3:04:40 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
213d
@keepcool0677 100% of anecdotal data like this is anecdotal.
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
·
213d
@keepcool0677 not one person who has made that accusation has ever documented one goal post that I actually moved.

not one.
B.B
@keepcool0677
·
213d
@GaryMarcus https://x.com/keepcool0677/statu…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
213d
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 is part of a public discourse involving a debate on the reliability and capabilities of AI technologies, specifically ChatGPT. The tone is defensive and accusatory, focusing on the perceived shifting of arguments rather than addressing the core issue of AI reliability.

  1. 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 criticism or dialogue. Instead, it accuses the other party of shifting goalposts without addressing the substantive issue of AI reliability. This approach detracts from constructive dialogue and leans towards personal attack. [-1]