Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
12/21/2024, 3:02:45 PM
X
In reply to:
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
201d
@GaryMarcus yeah but o3 isn't trained to be good at anything.

or rather. it's initially given lots of data and then trained to be good at broad reasoning. which it applies generally.

I also hate any definition of agi that needs to be embodied. this whole, can it walk into a random…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
201d
@iruletheworldmo [1. how should i know what’s in your anonymous head?]
2. i think an AGI should be able to control a robot as well as a human can teleoperate a robot. Is that not reasonable? Humans could teleop all those things.
3. A domain-specific medical system doesn’t necessarily entail AGI.…
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
201d
@GaryMarcus I assume you know why I don't like the list.

robotics will take longer and creative writing ect will be harder because we don't have right answers/tbinking to train on.

but if we get systems that cure disease ect, simply by scaling current paradigms.

the list just becomes…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
201d
@iruletheworldmo such a dumb comment; literally an ad hominem with zero argument. among your least impressive.
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
201d
@GaryMarcus such a dumb list 😂
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
201d
Some AGI-relevant predictions I made publicly long before o3 about what AI could not do by the end of 2025.

Do you seriously think o3-enhanced AI will solve any of them in next 12.5 months?

The conversation involves a debate about the capabilities and definitions of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). The participants discuss the criteria for AGI, with references to practical tasks and the embodiment of intelligence. The tone is critical and somewhat dismissive, particularly in the initial exchanges.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The conversation includes dismissive language, which could be seen as harmful or disrespectful, particularly in the use of 'dumb comment.' [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The exchange lacks respect for the dignity of others, as seen in the ad hominem remarks. [-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 dialogue does not engage in constructive criticism and includes personal attacks, which detracts from a productive discussion. [-2]