Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 4:00:10 AM
X
In reply to:
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
386d
@GaryMarcus @anupk24 Much of your concern (over teaching to the test &cetera) is immediately dissolved by ten minutes of reading.

It's a well written report and a good read! Give it a spin.
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.

The conversation involves a discussion about the interpretation of a report related to training tasks and responsible scholarship. The tone is critical and aims to clarify misunderstandings about the data presented in the report.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement attempts to clarify misunderstandings, which aligns with striving to do no harm by promoting accurate information. [+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 maintains a professional tone without engaging in personal attacks, respecting the dignity of others involved. [+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 criticism by addressing perceived inaccuracies in the interpretation of the report. [+1]