Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 76
2/18/2025, 10:52:58 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
268d
@IgorKurganov sam acknowledged that GPT-5 would not be pure scaling.

and he couldn’t thus far create it in any case.
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
268d
@GaryMarcus we’re still scaling…

opponents of scaling did not say “yes, we’ll have extra benefits from 100k gpus and later 1m gpus, they’ll just come from a different type of caling”
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
268d
@IgorKurganov no, in the LLM imperialism of the last few years, it wasn’t. that was the whole point of the scaling hypothesis - “scale is all you need” meant, well, scale is all you need.

that was wrong.
Igor Kurganov
@IgorKurganov
·
268d
@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
·
268d
@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
·
268d
@GaryMarcus As per usual:

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of AI development, specifically the debate around the scaling hypothesis in large language models (LLMs). The tone is somewhat confrontational, as it questions the understanding of a previous claim. The intent seems to be to challenge or clarify a point in the ongoing discussion about AI scaling.

  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 form of dialogue, but it does so in a confrontational manner, questioning the understanding of the other party. This could be seen as a minor violation of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue without personal attacks. [-1]