Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
12/21/2024, 9:28:04 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Schwartz
@MattZschwartz
·
371d
@Simon672491 @GaryMarcus @drexlspivy56 Did you see o3 evals yesterday? Appears to be much much better at math. I suspect o3 and whatever comes next will be very good at searching the space of all algorithms
Simon
@Simon672491
·
371d
@MattZschwartz @GaryMarcus @drexlspivy56 Is AI progressing so fast that this question makes sense ? It's a real question I have no clue in this domain. My understanging was that it was still lightyears away to tackle such problems. I know they have way better private models but o1 is still soooo terrible at math.
Matt Schwartz
@MattZschwartz
·
371d
@GaryMarcus @drexlspivy56 What probability would you give to an AI system solving a Millenium prize problem by the end of 2025?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
371d
@drexlspivy56 the frontiermath stuff impresses me but i would like to understand what is in the data augmentation
Drexl Spivy
@drexlspivy56
·
371d
@GaryMarcus fair. but do you also have a list of things o3-enhanced AI seemingly can perform that you would have though extremely unlikely within five years in 2020?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
371d
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 statement engages in a discussion about the capabilities and limitations of AI, specifically AGI, in response to claims about its progress. It questions the current abilities of AI in performing complex tasks, suggesting skepticism about its advancement.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and maintains a neutral tone, focusing on technical capabilities rather than personal attacks. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by questioning the current state of AI, encouraging a deeper look into its actual capabilities. [+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 dialogue by challenging claims with specific examples, fostering a critical discussion. [+1]