Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 76
2/18/2025, 10:40:41 PM
X
In reply to:
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
269d
@GaryMarcus I should really update it to “haha, but LLMs only make up a part of it, it’s AI as a whole that’s better than humans at almost anything”

This was assumed by most people
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
269d
@IgorKurganov also, people are already starting to enhance LLMs in various ways; LLMs will be part of the solution but unless you just redefine what an LLM is, they won’t be the whole solution.
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
269d
@GaryMarcus As per usual:
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
508d
LLM skeptics be like
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
269d
And yet Grok 3, with 15x the compute of Grok 2, and ungodly energy bills, still stumbled on 9.11 vs 9.9 and the number of L’s in Lollapalooza.

The important thing, folks, is to always revise your timelines forward, and never back, no matter what the empirical evidence might…
Haider.
@slow_developer
·
269d
when will we reach AGI?

Dario Amodei:
AGI as a model that can do everything a human can do, even at the level of a Nobel laureate — expected to be achieved in 2026-27

Demis Hassabis:
system achieving all the cognitive capabilities humans can — 50% chance of achieving this…

The statement critiques the 'scale is all you need' hypothesis in AI development, suggesting that merely increasing scale is insufficient for achieving desired outcomes. It engages in a technical discussion about the limitations of large language models (LLMs) and the broader AI field.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and contributes to a technical discussion, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by challenging existing assumptions about AI development, encouraging a more nuanced view. [+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 criticism of the scaling hypothesis without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]