Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
12/22/2024, 4:18:56 AM
X
In reply to:
Merovingian
@f4talStrategies
·
387d
@GaryMarcus Fair enough, Gary. Here’s my main critique: You keep insisting that fine-tuning on publicly available training data invalidates ARC—yet ARC’s Challenge Set was expressly designed to filter out shortcut-solvable questions.

You also cite critiques (Nie et al., Bengio et al.) aimed…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
387d
@f4talStrategies what was your best direct critique? I didn’t say 100% and didn’t single you out. if you are in the 2%, good for you!
Merovingian
@f4talStrategies
·
387d
@GaryMarcus Lol, Gary, I’ve made multiple direct critiques of your claims, and you’ve dodged all of them. Maybe engage with the 98% of critiques you’re conveniently ignoring before complaining about ad hominem.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
387d
Same same: “a lot of criticism of Gary but little critique of his specific claims.”

I love the 2% that actually engages with real claims.

The fact the rest is ad hominem speaks volumes.
The Retro Burn
@burntheretro
·
387d
@TheAlphaDoggo @FaustinoBerlin @GaryMarcus The best thing about logic is that it is easily distinguishable regardless of the context.

I see a lot of criticism of Gary but little critique of his specific claims.

The statement by @f4talStrategies addresses a public issue related to transparency in reporting by ARC and OpenAI, engaging in a debate about the validity of critiques and the nature of the discourse. The tone is corrective and aims to clarify a misunderstanding in the ongoing discussion.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm and seeks to clarify a misunderstanding, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to promote understanding by clarifying the speaker's position, which aligns with promoting understanding and empathy. [+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 a specific issue (lack of transparency) without resorting to personal attacks, aligning with the principle of constructive dialogue. [+1]