Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
3/8/2025, 5:27:08 PM
X
In reply to:
Sabine Hossenfelder
@skdh
·
312d
@GaryMarcus @tegmark the pattern isn't complex, you just need to be able to chew through a lot of data. See, if this was possible in 2019, how much will be possible in 2025:

https://www.nature.com/articles/…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
312d
@skdh @tegmark 1. Sure there is a lot left to discover.
2. But the causal reasoning is too poor, the evaluation of complex patterns is too unreliability, and the originality too low.
3. Best uses cases for quite some time will be things like AlphaFold where a scientist uses AI as a tool, and…
Sabine Hossenfelder
@skdh
·
312d
@GaryMarcus @tegmark Sorry @GaryMarcus I am with Max on this. There are almost certainly "Nobel quality discoveries" hidden in the published scientific literature because no human has an overview. AI can almost do this now, and these discoveries are no less "original" than what most scientists…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
312d
@tegmark Sorry @tegmark, with all due respect, I think that it is you that is mistaken.

Black box AI is not going (on its own) going to make original Nobel quality discoveries any time soon.

Roughly speaking, Dario is making an extrapolation that looks like this:
Max Tegmark
@tegmark
·
313d
Most of my MIT colleagues are in denial of this coming tsunami
Chubby♨️
@kimmonismus
·
314d
Anthropic: Intellectual AI capabilities matching or exceeding that of Nobel Prize winners across most disciplines—including biology, computer science, mathematics, and engineering by 2026-2027

"Our own recent work adds further evidence to the idea that powerful AI will arrive…

The statement engages in a discussion about the potential of AI in scientific discovery, contrasting human and machine capabilities. It acknowledges the role of AI as a tool for scientists while questioning its ability to independently achieve Nobel-worthy discoveries.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm and is part of a constructive debate about AI's role in science. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by distinguishing between AI as a tool and AI as an independent researcher. [+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, addressing differing views without personal attacks. [+1]