Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 96
1/26/2025, 3:11:16 AM
X
In reply to:
MindMirror
@TheMysteryDrop
·
149d
@GaryMarcus Sure. Customer service. I have a startup with 50+ international cs agents and we’ve stopped hiring new ones because we’ve used Intercom’s Finn to handle almost all inbound. Simple browser use (e.g. entering a form for scheduling when we can’t use an api) is still handled by…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
149d
@TheMysteryDrop Can you name even one real world human job that an LLM can do reliably and accurately, without human intervention, with the resourcefulness of a human employee in the face of unexpected circumstances?
MindMirror
@TheMysteryDrop
·
149d
@GaryMarcus Counting the number of times Nike has tweeted is somehow more legit “contact with the real-world” than any of the increasingly numerous things AI can do increasingly well?

Feels like grasping at straws. There will always be a few, but fewer by the day.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
149d
Precisely: the real world is where the rubber hits the road, and I have never seen any convincing evidence that any LLM or LLM-based agent can robustly survive contact with the real-world. Ever.

And as you say, too few even test for that.
DS
@LakeDaniel11
·
149d
I notice the tech guys always test these things the same way.

with math q's./etc

but they never ask them basic research stuff like "tell me about @Nike how many times have they tweeted about baseball this year?").

And all of them fail those questions still.

cc:@GaryMarcus

The statement is a critical response to a discussion about the use of AI in customer service, questioning the decision to replace human agents with bots. It reflects skepticism about AI's ability to handle customer service effectively and suggests a potential negative impact on customer experience.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm with words or actions, but it implies a negative consequence for the company, which could be seen as a minor violation of striving to do no harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy and dignity, as it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
  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 critical but does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, maintaining a focus on the issue rather than individuals.