Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 3:47:52 AM
X
In reply to:
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
386d
@GaryMarcus @anupk24 Please read the paper. It clearly states that the training set is 400 at the top of page 2. You making a stink over an article you've demonstrably not taken the 10 minutes to read is incredibly irresponsible scholarship, especially given the size of your platform.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
386d
@anupk24 @brhydon If Sam had said what you say in the second and third sentences clearly, spelling out what that means concretely (750? training examples), I wouldn’t be objecting.

But I also think significantly fewer people would have come away whispering about AGI.

I look forward to his…
Anup
@anupk24
·
386d
@GaryMarcus @brhydon Sam’s point is that the goal of the model was not to maximize ARC score. The goal was to build a general model that can reason, and part of ARC’s public training set (as allowed by the benchmark) was thrown in, and it achieves the high score.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
386d
@brhydon Singing lessons would be targeting singing.
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
386d
@GaryMarcus This isn't going to a Taylor Swift concert and catching her lip syncing. This is going to a Taylor Swift concert and being upset that she's taken singing lessons before.
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
386d
@GaryMarcus Professor Marcus, you're upset that we used the evaluation EXACTLY as designed and indicated by the original paper.

If someone watched that stream and feels mislead, then they never read the paper.

There is zero dishonesty here and its disrespectful to insinuate otherwise.

The statement is part of a public discourse about the interpretation of a presentation related to a research paper. The tone is defensive, aiming to clarify a misunderstanding about the speaker's intentions. The discussion involves the accuracy and interpretation of scientific communication, which is a public issue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement attempts to clarify a misunderstanding, which aligns with striving to do no harm by addressing potential misinformation. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by focusing on the content of the presentation rather than personal attacks. [+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 clarifying the speaker's position, though it could be more effective by directly addressing the concerns raised.