Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
1/1/2025, 5:09:45 PM
X
In reply to:
Surya Ganguli
@SuryaGanguli
·
396d
@GaryMarcus The tweet you quoted: "Generative AI models memorize their training data" was ambiguous, resulting in the possiblity that it does nothing but that. If they qualified the claim with "somtimes memorize," that would have been more precise. Of more scientific use would be an…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
396d
@SuryaGanguli Of course they don’t. Did someone say they did?

Hinton said they never do, in a condescending and erroneous way.

https://garymarcus.substack.com/…
Surya Ganguli
@SuryaGanguli
·
396d
@GaryMarcus They don’t always memorize.
Surya Ganguli
@SuryaGanguli
·
397d
Our new paper! "Analytic theory of creativity in convolutional diffusion models" lead expertly by @MasonKamb https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.20292
Our closed-form theory needs no training, is mechanistically interpretable & accurately predicts diffusion model outputs with high median r^2~0.9
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
396d
And to think that a Nobel Prize winner told me Generative AI systems don’t memorize, because “they just store weights” 🤦‍♂️
Ed Newton-Rex
@ednewtonrex
·
397d
Generative AI models memorize their training data, exhibit 31692

The statement engages in a technical discussion about the capabilities of generative AI models, specifically addressing the nuances of data memorization and plagiarism. It aims to clarify misconceptions and contribute to a more precise understanding of AI behavior.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to clarify misconceptions about AI, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm by promoting accurate information. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By addressing ambiguities and promoting a nuanced understanding, the statement fosters understanding and empathy towards differing viewpoints. [+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 dialogue by addressing specific points of disagreement without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]