Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
12/20/2024, 9:31:30 PM
X
In reply to:
juliette pluto
@foundjuliette
·
201d
@GaryMarcus @agi_awaiter @fchollet here: https://arcprize.org/blog/oai-o3…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
201d
@foundjuliette @agi_awaiter @fchollet I disagree, but where did he say that? it’s not in his feed.
juliette pluto
@foundjuliette
·
201d
@GaryMarcus @agi_awaiter "This is not merely incremental improvement, but a genuine breakthrough, marking a qualitative shift in AI capabilities compared to the prior limitations of LLMs." — @fchollet on o3
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
201d
@agi_awaiter dead in the water? all 7 were confirmed. which do you doubt?
AGI Awaiter
@agi_awaiter
·
202d
@GaryMarcus I’m in graduate school. What I conclude is that a tiny model performs slightly worse than a bigger model.

You’re lashing out because this predictions list is dead in the water. That was your whole thing and it’s gone. It’s okay maybe AVM can give some consolation?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
202d
The fan boys who are declaring victory now clearly never went to graduate school, where you learn to pick apart a bunch of graphs and ask hard questions.

Like, what does the top left graph here tell us?

The conversation involves a discussion on AI advancements, specifically regarding the ARC-AGI tool and OpenAI's performance. The tone is critical and analytical, with participants questioning the significance of recent AI developments. The discussion touches on the role of ARC-AGI as a research tool rather than a definitive test for AGI, and debates the implications of OpenAI's achievements.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to clarify misconceptions about ARC-AGI, promoting accurate understanding and reducing potential misinformation. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The discussion encourages understanding of AI tools and their purposes, fostering a more informed dialogue. [+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.
    There is some tension and disagreement, but the conversation remains focused on the topic rather than personal attacks.