Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 3:59:45 AM
X
In reply to:
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
386d
@GaryMarcus @anupk24 You keep saying 1000 or 750 despite section 1.1 elucidating the true number of training tasks in no uncertain terms.

The literature exists for a reason and opining on an evaluation you're willfully remaining ignorant on is irresponsible scholarship. Full stop.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
386d
@brhydon @anupk24 I am *not* making a stink over the article.

I making a stink over a presentation that many people misinterpreted in part probably because of what Sam said.

I made perfectly clear in other tweets this evening that my concern is not with task, and not with the administration of…
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.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the interpretation of data and communication in AI research. The tone is critical and seeks clarification on the use of terms in a blog post, expressing frustration over the lack of clarity and perceived insult.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to clarify misunderstandings, which aligns with striving to do no harm, but the frustration expressed could be seen as slightly aggressive.
  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 privacy but hints at a personal grievance, which could be seen as bordering on disrespect. [-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 criticism but lacks constructive dialogue, focusing more on expressing frustration. [-1]