Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 3:02:40 AM
X
In reply to:
David Balfour
@hal_incandenza4
·
376d
@GaryMarcus @ZggyPlaydGuitar @fchollet He meant they didn’t do any of the things not allowed by competition (private datasets, task leakages, task specific hacks etc). Any good faith listener can surmise this. He’s not dumb enough to lie to literal sponsor of the challenge that they didn’t use the public training set
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
376d
@ZggyPlaydGuitar @hal_incandenza4 @fchollet i wish it had been clearer in the video. and that sam had not said we didn’t target.

but then people wouldn’t have started whispering about AGI, either.
Zggy
@ZggyPlaydGuitar
·
376d
@GaryMarcus @hal_incandenza4 @fchollet it's in the first sentence
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
376d
@hal_incandenza4 As I said before, it’s not about how the test was conducted, it’s about what people took from the video and Sam’s “we didn’t target” remark.

In my informal poll , over half of listeners assumed that o3 had done what @fchollet called the “more impressive” thing of taking the…
David Balfour
@hal_incandenza4
·
376d
@GaryMarcus Chollet himself confirming this is all aboveboard
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
376d
@hal_incandenza4

The statement engages in a discussion about AI training practices and the interpretation of competition rules, which is a public discourse topic. The tone is analytical and seeks to clarify misunderstandings about AI model training and evaluation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and aims to clarify a misunderstanding, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by explaining the difference between 'no targeting' and 'no teaching to the test,' 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 dialogue by addressing a potential misinterpretation without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]