Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
12/21/2024, 9:09:51 PM
X
In reply to:
Mike Knoop
@mikeknoop
·
370d
@LakeBrenden @GaryMarcus Practically, we needed to fix the namespace issue with the other old ARC benchmark (from AI2). It was causing a ton of confusion on model cards.

We debated some options but settled on ARC-AGI as a fair name that reflects the benchmark's original attempt to guide and measure the…
Brenden Lake
@LakeBrenden
·
370d
@GaryMarcus Agreed. The string “AGI” does not appear in the original paper
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
371d
@LakeBrenden That was not wise. It’s at most necessary and certainly not sufficient.
Brenden Lake
@LakeBrenden
·
371d
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
·
371d
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 engages in a discussion about the naming and implications of a benchmark related to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which is a significant topic in the field of AI research. The tone is respectful and aims to clarify misunderstandings while acknowledging the contributions of others in the conversation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm by appreciating the clarification and noble intention, which aligns with the principle. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by acknowledging the importance of accurate naming and the implications of using 'AGI' in the title, fostering a more informed 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 agreeing with a previous point and providing a rationale for why the test's name should not include 'AGI', without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]