Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
路
372d
approximately 100 people on this site have accused me of moving goalposts.

exactly zero have ever documented this claim.

if you believe it, bring receipts.

if you don鈥檛 have receipts, please go away.
12/21/2024, 10:20:40 PM
X
In reply to:
Daniel B枚ttger 馃挅
@7SecularSermons
路
372d
@FellowHominid @ozziegooen Yes they should, but if the hit-a-wall-guy @GaryMarcus were to stop moving the goalposts he'd be out of a stream of income, so I don't expect him to.
Consistently Candid Alex
@FellowHominid
路
373d
@ozziegooen People should update on this. In some sense this is expected based on scaling inference time but it's still an update that it continues to work. Any slim hopes that things would hit a wall are rapidly disappearing.
These benchmarks are wildly hard
Ozzie Gooen
@ozziegooen
路
373d
The ARC and FrontierMath forecasts have dramatically shifted since the announcement of o3, but the market's barely moved, and I think forecasts about the bigger-picture of AI has barely moved.

Clearly we need better benchmarks and measures, but that's big a challenge.

The statement by @7SecularSermons engages in a public discourse about the behavior of a public figure, @GaryMarcus, in the context of AI benchmarks and forecasts. The tone is critical and somewhat dismissive, suggesting that @GaryMarcus is intentionally shifting his arguments for financial gain.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm, as it accuses @GaryMarcus of unethical behavior without evidence, potentially harming his reputation.聽[-2]
  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 respect the dignity of @GaryMarcus, as it implies dishonesty and financial motivation without substantiation, bordering on harassment.聽[-2]
  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, as it resorts to a personal attack rather than addressing the argument or evidence.聽[-2]