Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47

Score 76

@altryne @grok The example was literally from @karpathy, not me (screen capture below), and probably what we are seeing is either

a. the usual stochastic indeterminacy

or

b. a band-aid on the specific example, because it was in Karpathy’s post or mine.

Either way, you should withdraw your…

2/18/2025, 10:43:37 PM

In reply to:

Alex Volkov (Thursd/AI) 🔜 AIENG summit NY

@altryne

269d

Dear Gary, please check your facts before posting

Respectfully, the world.

(this is with search off and no thinking enabled, as basic as it @grok can be)

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…

The statement is part of a technical discussion about the performance of language models, specifically addressing a misunderstanding or error in a previous post. The tone is corrective and somewhat defensive, aiming to clarify the source of an example and suggest a possible explanation for the observed behavior of the model.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not cause harm and seeks to clarify a misunderstanding, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others, focusing on technical issues rather than personal attacks. [+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 constructive criticism by addressing a specific issue and suggesting a possible explanation, without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]