Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
3/8/2025, 6:19:40 PM
X
In reply to:
Sabine Hossenfelder
@skdh
·
312d
@GaryMarcus @tegmark yes I saw that but not like plagiarism is a new invention...
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
312d
@skdh @tegmark ps this is almost the flipside: automated scientific plagiarism: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.16487
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
312d
@skdh @tegmark What do you think is the most scientifically original thing an AI has done to date?

General Problem Solver was helping with proofs in the 1950s, but not figuring out what the important questions are to ask.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge…
Sabine Hossenfelder
@skdh
·
312d
@GaryMarcus @tegmark I agree but I think there are cases where the step from the first (data analysis and search etc) to the latter (a Nobel worthy discovery) is so small that AIs can now almost close it on their own.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
312d
@skdh @tegmark Maybe we are talking past each other. I don’t doubt that a scientist with an eye of what they want can use these things as tools.

There is a difference between a machine conceiving of an executing a research program that is original and important and Nobel worthy, and a Nobel…
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/…

The statement is part of a public discourse on the impact of AI on scientific research, specifically addressing concerns about plagiarism and the quality of literature. It engages with the broader debate on AI's role in academia and its potential consequences.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language but raises concerns about potential harm to academic integrity. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy and dignity, focusing on systemic issues rather than individuals. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding of the potential negative impacts of AI on research quality. [+1]
  4. 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 AI's role in academia without personal attacks. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to highlight potential societal issues related to AI in research. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech principles by responsibly discussing AI's impact on academia. [+1]