Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
12/31/2024, 2:49:56 PM
X
In reply to:
Carlos E. Perez
@IntuitMachine
·
395d
@GaryMarcus Here's the o1 pro analysis of the flaws in your arguments:

Gary Marcus’s critique raises many genuinely important issues—risk of hype, reliability, interpretability, the lack of robust symbolic reasoning, and so on. These are shared concerns across many corners of AI research.…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
395d
@IntuitMachine see https://garymarcus.substack.com/… for an assessment at two years after I coined the phrase.
Carlos E. Perez
@IntuitMachine
·
395d
@GaryMarcus For starters though, can you qualify or quantify what hitting a wall even means in the context of deep learning?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
395d
@IntuitMachine You are always welcome to disagree - and thanks for finding some value anyway — but that’s not a specific prediction that I made and got wrong, which is what I am looking for in this context.
Carlos E. Perez
@IntuitMachine
·
395d
@GaryMarcus Hey, I'm not a hater, I just think you are fundamentally wrong. I said so in 2018 when you first used the "hitting the wall" phrase wrt deep learning. That said, I think what you do is valuable.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
395d
Gary haters, here’s your chance! For an upcoming roundup, what AI predictions have I made that were wrong?

The statement is part of a public discourse on the challenges and critiques of deep learning in AI, involving a debate between Gary Marcus and IntuitMachine. The tone is defensive, aiming to clarify a previous critique and suggest an alternative approach.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm and is focused on clarifying 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 intent behind the critique and suggesting an alternative approach, aligning with the principle of 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 the content of the critique rather than attacking the individual, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue. [+1]