Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
12/24/2024, 5:49:45 PM
X
In reply to:
Petr Baudis
@xpasky
·
398d
@AdanBecerraPhD @GaryMarcus Wait what, "failed"? Isn't it a bit soon to call that? (We certainly aren't behind any consensus timelines so far.)
Adan Z Becerra, PhD
@AdanBecerraPhD
·
398d
@xpasky @GaryMarcus The “algorithm” is a bit too vague for me but seems like we agree. What is clear is that deep learning on its own failed to get to AGI which is why we are experimenting with program search. Deep learning is here to stay but it was oversold.
Petr Baudis
@xpasky
·
398d
@AdanBecerraPhD @GaryMarcus Totally agree, I did mean the algorithm. (The picture is getting fairly clear in various Twitter pockets.)
Adan Z Becerra, PhD
@AdanBecerraPhD
·
398d
@xpasky @GaryMarcus The product doesn’t matter much. The underlying science that powers the product is more important so I would look to scientific methods (eg discrete program search, causal inference, chain of though etc) being the link not the products.
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?

The statement 'is failing' is part of a broader discussion on the development and challenges of artificial general intelligence (AGI) and deep learning. This conversation involves substantive engagement with public issues related to technology and its implications, thus constituting public discourse. The tone of the statement is critical, suggesting skepticism about the current state or progress of deep learning in achieving AGI.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as dismissive without further context or explanation, which might indirectly contribute to misunderstanding. [-1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks an effort to promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it is a brief critique without elaboration. [-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 is a critical response but does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. However, it lacks constructive criticism or dialogue, as it does not provide reasoning or evidence for the claim. [-1]