Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 3:24:14 AM
X
In reply to:
Ben Goertzel
@bengoertzel
·
381d
@GaryMarcus Hmm, o1-pro-mode does really well at mapping English into predicate logic already. It gets complex quantifier bindings right most of the time.

4o already basically did the task well EXCEPT for messing up quantifiers a lot. o1-pro-mode almost solved that problem. So it…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
382d
@bengoertzel Agree with you up until “o3 is probably clever enough to reliably map English into uncertain predicate logic expression”

That would be a huge advance but I didn’t particularly see evidence of that being true.

My guess is that all the demos relied on very heavy data augmentation…
Ben Goertzel
@bengoertzel
·
382d
@GaryMarcus Hmmm....

Not having played with the o3 model myself yet, I don't want to say too much that's super definitive...

My experience with previous models is, at first when I try them I'm like "Whoa! Incredible! This is super smart! Look what it can do!" ... then after trying to use…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
383d
The fan boys who are declaring victory now clearly never went to graduate school, where you learn to pick apart a bunch of graphs and ask hard questions.

Like, what does the top left graph here tell us?

The statement engages in a technical discussion about AI models and their capabilities, specifically regarding mapping English into predicate logic. It expresses interest in understanding the data and criteria used to evaluate these models, showing a desire for transparency and clarity.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement is inquisitive and seeks to understand the data, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By expressing trust and a desire to understand, the statement promotes understanding and empathy. [+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 constructively by asking for clarification rather than making assumptions or personal attacks. [+1]