Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 4:16:05 AM
X
In reply to:
Mickey Muldoon
@mickeymuldoon
·
387d
@brhydon @GaryMarcus True, but I thought the point of *general* intelligence was that there isn’t a textbook for it that you can pattern-match against.

Also, as a human, I require no exposure to training examples for this benchmark.
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
387d
@GaryMarcus It's truly no different than reading a text book and then going to do a test.

There is no scandal and nothing up our sleeves - the Arc agi folks explicitly OK this.
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
387d
@GaryMarcus it's the TRAIN set that was used not the TEST set. And it wasn't even the FULL train set.

The format for Arc is very bespoke and requires some explanation, using 3/4 of the TRAIN set we demonstrated the weird JSON format and let the thing fly on the PRIVATE TEST set.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
387d
If Taylor Swift lipsynced her way through her Eras Tours, it would be a huge scandal. (And she would never do such a thing.)

If OpenAI gave a big spiel about solving ARC-AGI and didn’t say out loud that they trained on 75% of the public examples, and didn’t dwell on the fact…

The statement is part of a technical discussion about machine learning and artificial general intelligence (AGI), specifically addressing the expectations and assumptions about training and performance. It engages with public issues related to AI development and transparency, making it a part of public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and maintains a neutral tone, adhering to the principle of doing no harm with words. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to clarify a misunderstanding about AI training, promoting understanding and empathy towards the complexities of AI development. [+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, addressing a point of disagreement without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]