Gary Marcus

Rank 20 of 47
|
Score 55
12/21/2024, 12:06:33 AM
X
In reply to:
Slovan
@ISlovan
·
192d
@_pierre_75015 @GaryMarcus "Prediction: By end of 2024 we will see
• No massive advance"
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
477d
Prediction: By end of 2024 we will see
• 7-10 GPT-4 level models
• No massive advance (no GPT-5, or disappointing GPT-5)
• Price wars
• Very little moat for anyone
• No robust solution to hallucinations
• Modest lasting corporate adoption
• Modest profits, split 7-10 ways
_pierre_75015
@_pierre_75015
·
192d
@ISlovan @GaryMarcus True, but he did not exactly say it isn’t. Look at his last two sentences here:
(Earlier, when not everybody had yet come to explain to him how wrong he was, which is what he most likely reacting to now)
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
192d
Nice try, but this is goal post shifting. when I proposed the “wall” I didn’t talk about ARC.

I talked about hallucinations, compositionality, boneheaded errors, etc.

Today’s demo didn’t address any of those and was very light on applications outside of benchmarks in closed…
Slovan
@ISlovan
·
192d
@_pierre_75015 @GaryMarcus In any case, saying that o1 compared to GPT-4 from early 2024 is not a spectacular advancement borders on bad faith.
_pierre_75015
@_pierre_75015
·
192d
@ISlovan @GaryMarcus The problem in this instance is most probably that you two don’t share the same definition of significant.
Slovan
@ISlovan
·
192d
@GaryMarcus How many times has Gary Marcus written that AI is no longer making significant progress?

Thousands?
(It's already been hundreds)
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
192d
How many times do we have to see this same movie, where an AI beats some benchmark and influencers gleefully shout “It’s So Over” without even trying out the AI and then on careful inspection the AI turns out to not be robust or reliable?

Thousands?

(It’s already been…

The statement engages in a discussion about the progress of AI models, specifically comparing GPT-3 to GPT-4, and challenges a prediction about the lack of massive advancements in AI. The tone is assertive, aiming to counter a previous claim with a strong opinion on the significance of the advancements.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is part of a technical debate. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by providing a counterpoint in a technical discussion. [+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 by challenging a prediction with a specific example. [+1]