Gary Marcus

Rank 18 of 47
|
Score 99
12/21/2024, 12:20:49 AM
X
In reply to:
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
3d
@GaryMarcus @DeepwriterAI i *would* argue that beating Francois' arc-agi-eval *years* before he thought possible and absolutely hockey sticking the progress is absolutely a "mic drop moment". It does suggest that we've found new knobs to twist and they're yielding incredibly powerful fruit.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
3d
@DeepwriterAI @brhydon ok, well i hereby publicly disagree with anyone who said “no progress has been made”. that’s a silly claim.
Garrett of DeepwriterAI
@DeepwriterAI
·
3d
@GaryMarcus @brhydon You didn't but somebody did
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
3d
@DeepwriterAI @brhydon nobody said “no progress has been made”
Garrett of DeepwriterAI
@DeepwriterAI
·
3d
@brhydon @GaryMarcus This is why we have such cognitive dissonance rn. We have the claim that agi is here and that no progress has been made. Both are wrong. But i tend to appreciate those who go against the hype and crowds as being more minable for uncommon insights.
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
3d
@GaryMarcus From my reading this is a substantial update to your point 5. Ofc this isn't a whole picture, but certainly it seems bad faith to not call this a major progress upon that axis towards AGI? And demonstrably the largest update along that axis an LLM has taken

The statement engages in a discussion about progress in AI, specifically addressing the perceived lack of attention to certain issues over time. It reflects a critical stance on the ongoing discourse about advancements in AGI.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but expresses dissatisfaction with unaddressed issues, which can be seen as constructive criticism.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy but highlights ongoing concerns, which could encourage further dialogue.
  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 pointing out persistent issues, contributing to the dialogue without personal attacks. [+1]