Gary Marcus

Rank 16 of 47

|

Score 80

0

@_profbadtrip @inafried Yes but his view is that it is all deep learning; mine is that we need to ingrate symbolic AI into the picture.

The thing is that everything I said about deep learning in 2018-2019 and LLMs in 2019 and going forward he now says about LLMs but he never acknowledges that, even…

1/26/2025, 10:11:52 AM

In reply to:

Professor Bad Trip 🔻

@_profbadtrip

·

151d

@GaryMarcus @inafried It's explicit, Gary: "Important note: this won't be sufficient to take us to "true" AI. Other concepts will be needed for that, such as what I used to call predictive learning and now decided to call Imputative Learning. More on this later..."

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

·

151d

@_profbadtrip He says the phrase “deep learning” is out, not the field. A few days before Facebook post that he said I was mostly wrong in my 2018 Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal. Reread the and compare to the critique he just gave @inafried. As late as late 2019 he said my campaign…

Professor Bad Trip 🔻

@_profbadtrip

·

151d

@GaryMarcus Here, from January 2018: https://www.facebook.com/yann.le…

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

·

151d

@_profbadtrip Show me; your memory is wrong afaik, and I have receipts of him attacking me through 2018 and 2019.

Professor Bad Trip 🔻

@_profbadtrip

·

151d

@GaryMarcus You're unfair on that one. LeCun at least as early as 2018 has been saying that deep learning is out, and said it would mature into a new programming paradigm called differentiable programming. I actually think he's right.

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

·

151d

Fact: Yann LeCun’s 2025 critique of LLMs sounds almost exactly like the conclusions of Rebooting AI (2019) and my 2020 article Next Decade in AI.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the development and future of AI technologies, specifically deep learning and symbolic AI. It reflects a debate on the evolution of AI methodologies and the recognition of contributions in the field.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but it does imply a lack of acknowledgment from another party, which could be seen as a minor negative tone. [-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 engages in a critique of another's views without resorting to personal attacks, maintaining a focus on the subject matter. [+1]
Principle 5:
I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
The statement suggests that the other party does not acknowledge past contributions, but it does not reflect on the speaker's own potential mistakes or corrections.