Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 3:19:34 AM
X
In reply to:
David Balfour
@hal_incandenza4
·
379d
@GaryMarcus @ZggyPlaydGuitar @fchollet @doomie @GoogleDeepMind Gary, please don’t insult my (and other’s) intelligence. If you really think “the issue here was not what was done but how it was reported” you would not have said this
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
379d
@hal_incandenza4 @ZggyPlaydGuitar @fchollet @doomie @GoogleDeepMind I can’t 100% speak to Sam’s intentions (though I have written before about previous concerns I have and others have had about his honesty).

But I am glad that you acknowledged that the language was ambiguous to a lot of the audience. The issue here was not what was done but it…
David Balfour
@hal_incandenza4
·
379d
@GaryMarcus @ZggyPlaydGuitar @fchollet @doomie @GoogleDeepMind I guess the language was ambiguous to a lot of the audience. I think Altman said that directly to the sponsor assuming he knew what he meant, in reaction to his colleague’s choice of words. It wasn’t pre-scripted and I doubt he intended to mislead
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
379d
@hal_incandenza4 @ZggyPlaydGuitar @fchollet I believe that @doomie from @GoogleDeepMind (Veo project inter alia) had much the same reaction I did.

I certainly didn’t hear “no targeting” it as “no cheating”; i heard it as no teaching to the test, and 750 training items feels like teaching to the test when i know humans…
David Balfour
@hal_incandenza4
·
379d
@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
·
379d
@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.

The statement and conversation involve a discussion about transparency and honesty in reporting, particularly in the context of AI training practices. The tone is critical and somewhat accusatory, focusing on the perceived lack of transparency by 'Sam.'

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement questions transparency, which can be seen as an attempt to hold someone accountable, aligning with the principle of doing no harm by promoting honesty. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The conversation involves criticism but does not engage in direct harassment or hate speech, though it borders on personal attacks.
  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 dialogue includes criticism and disagreement, but it lacks constructive engagement and leans towards personal attacks, particularly with the phrase 'Never trust Sam. Ever.' [-1]