Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 83
12/31/2024, 3:20:16 PM
X
In reply to:
Carlos E. Perez
@IntuitMachine
·
395d
@GaryMarcus Gary Marcus’s critiques often reflect the idea that anything less than a Platonic (or idealized human) standard for cognition means AI lacks “true” comprehension. But human cognition itself is far from that Platonic ideal: we are riddled with memory errors, biases, illusions, and…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
395d
@IntuitMachine This is a deceptive unfair critique; I did not present the article as “proof”.

Rather, I itemized a list of problems that I suggested were unlikely to be solved within the current approach - they haven’t been - and suggested an alternative.

The “hybrid” line is really off the…
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.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of AI comprehension and reliability, engaging in a debate about the interpretability and reliability of AI systems compared to human cognition. The tone is critical and analytical, aiming to contrast the capabilities of AI with human cognitive standards.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions, as it focuses on a technical critique rather than personal attacks.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to promote understanding by comparing AI systems to human cognition, though it could be more empathetic in acknowledging the complexities of both.
  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 technical aspects of AI comprehension, avoiding personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]