Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 99
12/21/2024, 3:19:21 PM
X
In reply to:
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
206d
@GaryMarcus so if o3 could call stockfish you accept its mastered chess? same with a calculator for math.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
206d
@iruletheworldmo i am not even sure o3 can play chess, totally closed domain with immense data, without making illegal moves.

[i don’t exclude tool use, but you have to use the tools reliably; see my substack on that]
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
206d
@GaryMarcus well I think o10 will be able to do anything alpha fold can do. although i beleieve you exclude tool use as intelligence. which seems totally incompatible with everything else you say on intelligence.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
206d
@iruletheworldmo you are totally ignoring my AGI vs domain-specific AI point.

i didn’t say call AlphaFold dumb.
🍓🍓🍓
@iruletheworldmo
·
207d
@GaryMarcus by these defifnions we'll have systems that cure all known disease, prevent death, show us time travel and all knowable secrets of the universe.

but let's call them dumb because they can't ride a mountain bike or pour a coffee. it's nonsense. it bends the meaning of…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
207d
@iruletheworldmo the average person is not an expert on intelligence

The statement is part of a broader discussion on artificial intelligence and its capabilities, specifically in relation to chess and tool use. The tone is somewhat dismissive, aiming to counter an argument about AI mastery in chess by questioning the logic of equating tool use with mastery.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm but uses a dismissive tone, which could be seen as slightly undermining constructive dialogue.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it dismisses the argument without providing a constructive counterpoint. [-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 a form of constructive criticism by questioning the logic of the argument, but the dismissive tone could be seen as a minor personal attack. [-1]