Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47

|

Score 83

+3

@AdanBecerraPhD @DFinsterwalder promised long thread with quote from Adan is now up:

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

·

388d

𝗼𝟯 “𝗔𝗥𝗖 𝗔𝗚𝗜” 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗺𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱: 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴—𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀

@KevinRoose, of Hard Fork and NYT, was so impressed with OpenAI’s rollout that he joked “of course they…

12/22/2024, 3:45:56 PM

In reply to:

Adan Z Becerra, PhD

@AdanBecerraPhD

·

388d

@DFinsterwalder @GaryMarcus It doesn’t have to be this way though. How we respond can influence what “growing up” looks like.

David Finsterwalder

@DFinsterwalder

·

388d

@AdanBecerraPhD @GaryMarcus Well they needed more money and are now a commercial company. Money is a limited resource and CEOs of scale-ups have to jump through loops to get it. Imo the sad reality is that this is how growing up looks like. Not saying I am happy with this either.

Adan Z Becerra, PhD

@AdanBecerraPhD

·

388d

@DFinsterwalder @GaryMarcus Yes OpenAI is allowed to do many things. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be allowed to do what they did. I just wish OAI grew up and was more transparent so that they could guide the world better in terms of expectations.

David Finsterwalder

@DFinsterwalder

·

388d

@AdanBecerraPhD @GaryMarcus 💯OpenAI didn’t do a good job on communication. But if a challenge has an allowed training set it’s also not malicious to use it and not talk about it.

If you win a bike race on foot it’s obviously more impressive, but I wouldn’t expect someone using a bike tell me about it.

Adan Z Becerra, PhD

@AdanBecerraPhD

·

388d

@DFinsterwalder @GaryMarcus I don’t criticize them for doing that. I criticize them for not making this point explicit during the demo and acknowledging that a better model would be one that does well without being trained on the prize.

David Finsterwalder

@DFinsterwalder

·

388d

@AdanBecerraPhD @GaryMarcus Totally agree that it’s a valid datapoint! And I am also open for discussions that question the ARC challenge itself. I haven’t even read enough about it to have a strong opinion. But I still think it’s very flawed to criticize OpenAI for using the training data as intended.

The statement is part of a broader conversation about OpenAI's transparency and communication practices, which are public issues related to corporate responsibility and ethical AI development. The tone is analytical and critical, aiming to engage in a dialogue about expectations and practices in the tech industry.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not appear to cause harm and is part of a constructive dialogue, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by discussing the importance of transparency and setting expectations, aligning with the principle of promoting empathy and compassion. [+1]
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 without personal attacks, adhering to the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue. [+1]