Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
12/24/2024, 5:36:32 PM
X
In reply to:
Petr Baudis
@xpasky
·
398d
@AdanBecerraPhD @GaryMarcus No, I meant that it was part of the AGI tech derivation. (We wouldn't have AGI in the form we will if o* or equivalent didn't exist.)
Adan Z Becerra, PhD
@AdanBecerraPhD
·
398d
@xpasky @GaryMarcus What does it mean to be a link in AGI lineage? Does it just mean tech that was built before AGI?
Petr Baudis
@xpasky
·
398d
@GaryMarcus You aren't explicitly negating that o3 will be a link in AGI lineage though.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
398d
Aside from details around ARC & other benchmarks, o3 won’t turn out to be reliable across domains, and it will in hindsight seem wildly inefficient.

MUCH better technology will emerge, after the LLM hype subsides. (LLMs may still exist, but will be just one tool in a larger…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
398d
Mark my words: when AGI does actually come, perhaps 10 or 20 years from now, people will laugh at the idea that o3 was close to AGI.
Mikel Bober-Irizar
@mikb0b
·
401d
You've seen some of the puzzles o3 failed, but have you seen the attempts?

Yesterday, @OpenAI's o3 dramatically beat the SOTA at @arcprize. But there were 34 tasks that even it couldn't solve with 16 hours of thinking.

I've compiled and analyzed all of o3's mistakes below 🧵

The statement engages in a technical discussion about the development and understanding of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) and the role of specific technologies in its evolution. It critiques the transparency and mechanisms of a particular approach, indicating a need for clarity in the field.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and contributes to a technical discussion. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by questioning the transparency of the technology, encouraging further explanation and clarity. [+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 without personal attacks, focusing on the technology rather than individuals. [+1]