Gary Marcus

Rank 9 of 47
|
Score 130
4/19/2025, 1:18:37 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
69d
@edanm @shaunralston 1. They still require an unknown number of humans in the background for remote operations
2. They allegedly require enormously detailed, specialized maps; new cities require an enormous amount of city-specific prep
3. They are demos in the sense that you can’t just drop them in a
Edan Maor
@edanm
·
69d
@GaryMarcus @shaunralston Aren't driverless cars operating in production in some cities? While it's definitely not mass adoption, I also don't think it's fair to call it just a demo.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
70d
@shaunralston Also we have made progress on driverless cars for 40 years but they are still demos.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
70d
@shaunralston Which of these predictions was wrong, remind me?
Shaun Ralston
@shaunralston
·
70d
@GaryMarcus Gary, I’m all for free speech and a chorus of viewpoints (srsly), but oy gevalt, you’re coming off like a nonstop "kvetcher," especially lately, when you won’t acknowledge the progress we’ve made. We may not be at the finish line, yet we’re miles ahead of where we started, and
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
70d
👇2025 version of Geoff Hinton’s infamous (and wrong) 2016, “we should stop training radiologists now. It's just completely obvious that within five years, deep learning is going to do better than radiologist.” [AFAIK No actual radiologists have yet been replaced, almost a decade

The statement 'dirt->city' is a brief and cryptic reply in a conversation about the progress of driverless cars. It seems to suggest a transition or transformation, possibly implying skepticism about the readiness of driverless cars for urban environments. The conversation involves a debate on the current state and future of driverless technology, touching on issues like human involvement, mapping requirements, and the definition of 'demos.'

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but may contribute to a dismissive tone in the discussion.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks clarity and does not promote understanding or empathy, as it is cryptic and open to interpretation. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it is not clear or detailed enough to contribute meaningfully to the discussion. [-1]