Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
12/21/2024, 10:34:03 PM
X
In reply to:
Clay
@ClayCampaigne
·
372d
@GaryMarcus I don’t claim it proves AGI, and Chollet didn’t say it was a sufficient condition for AGI. But you are recasting passing the benchmark as some sort of sham or failure, by inventing new conditions.
It’s a framing trick.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
372d
@ClayCampaigne i never endorsed ARC as a measure of AGI. at most i said it was an interesting test, maybe?

Francois may have shifted, but i didn’t say what you seem to attribute to me.
Clay
@ClayCampaigne
·
372d
Goalpost-moving Gary.
Two days ago the arc benchmark was the arc benchmark (all Chollet had said was that generating millions or billions of examples would be gaming the benchmark). Now the benchmark includes the new stipulation that the *public training set* be excluded.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
372d
@WallpaperKeith @fchollet i don’t think humans would need 75% of the training set in this instance or many others.

and it raises the question of whether they were learning the abstract idea, or just idiosyncrasies of how these problems were constructed.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of artificial general intelligence (AGI) and the validity of benchmarks used to measure it. The tone is defensive and accusatory, focusing on the shifting of goalposts in the debate.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm, but the accusatory tone could escalate tensions.
  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 engage in cyberbullying or hate speech, but it does involve a personal accusation which could affect the dignity of the other party. [-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 personal attacks by accusing the other party of shifting goalposts, which detracts from constructive dialogue. [-2]