Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 4:10:20 AM
X
In reply to:
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
386d
@GaryMarcus @anupk24 Ive not insulted you and am sorry if it came across as if I had

We both have PhDs. We both are aware of the value of primary sources. We both know that blogs will not spell things out in nearly as much details as technical reports. Im earnestly surprised that you haven't read it
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
386d
@brhydon @anupk24 It’s late where I am but I am still not quite squaring what is meant by “samples” in the blog [where I derived my number] vs tasks [see left diagream], and how these relates to the [right].

It shouldn’t be this hard to figure out what you actually did, and you shouldn’t insult…
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…

The statement is part of a public discourse on the interpretation and value of certain AI tasks and datasets. The tone is reflective and somewhat critical, focusing on personal priorities in AI research.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is a personal reflection on the value of certain tasks. [+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, avoiding 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 criticism, focusing on the content rather than personal attacks. [+1]