Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 83
12/31/2024, 3:25:53 PM
X
In reply to:
Carlos E. Perez
@IntuitMachine
·
395d
@GaryMarcus You shouldn't shoot the messenger; instead, address the specific content.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
395d
@IntuitMachine I would sooner attribute comprehension to a GPS system – which is interpretable and can make reliable inferences over the things it “knows” – than to a statistical approximation of language which is not interpretable can’t really do much of anything with reliability.

i don’t…
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.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of AI comprehension and the critique of language models. The tone is dismissive, indicating a reluctance to engage further in the discussion due to time constraints.

  1. 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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It dismisses the opportunity to address misunderstandings, which could have been an avenue for constructive engagement. [-1]