Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
12/23/2024, 2:11:59 AM
X
In reply to:
Philip Winston
@pbwinston
·
393d
@GaryMarcus Humans have not seen 99.99% of the corpus foundation models are trained on but Human vs. AI’s performance there is still relevant.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
393d
“t wasn’t fine tuned, the train set was just in the training corpus” appears to be true.

But the point is (still) that you can’t compare machine results to human results when humans don’t have the training set in their corpus and the machines do.

Why is that so hard to…
shaperotator (e/λ)
@circlerotator
·
393d
@Lunarmony @olcan @stanWis @GaryMarcus @mikeknoop @doomie @jpineau1 @fchollet A) it was
B) it wasn’t fine tuned, the train set was just in the training corpus
C) o1 also gets 50%

The statement engages in a technical discussion about AI training and performance, questioning the comparison between human and machine learning. It suggests a potential solution of having machines memorize tasks, which touches on the broader debate about AI capabilities and limitations.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is part of a constructive technical discussion. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by engaging in a dialogue about AI training methods. [+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 questioning current practices and suggesting alternatives. [+1]