Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
12/21/2024, 2:52:46 PM
X
In reply to:
Brenden Lake
@LakeBrenden
·
201d
@GaryMarcus Agreed. The string “AGI” does not appear in the original paper
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
202d
@LakeBrenden That was not wise. It’s at most necessary and certainly not sufficient.
Brenden Lake
@LakeBrenden
·
202d
The benchmark sponsors did put AGI in the name. Not initially, but after years of little progress. I don’t like the term AGI but these comments are a little difficult to square.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
202d
Important words from @fchollet:

“it is important to note that ARC-AGI is not an acid test for AGI – as we've repeated dozens of times this year. It's a research tool designed to focus attention on the most challenging unsolved problems in AI, a role it has fulfilled well over…

The statement 'and should have stayed out of it' is a dismissive comment in a conversation about the use of the term 'AGI' in AI research. It does not engage substantively with the public issue being discussed, which is the appropriateness and implications of using 'AGI' in research contexts. Instead, it focuses on a personal opinion about participation in the discussion.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm, but its dismissive tone could contribute to a negative discourse environment. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying or hate speech, but it lacks respect for the dignity of others by dismissing their participation. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue; it is dismissive and could be seen as a personal attack. [-2]