Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
271d
@tobyordoxford that is a key part of the scandal: o3-you-can’-t-actually-have-but-claim-we-have is NOT o3-that-you-can-have, but the two are named with highly confusable names.

And I don’t think there was much public acknowledgement that was advertised December is not the product that was
4/23/2025, 5:07:43 PM
X
In reply to:
Flowers
@flowersslop
·
271d
@GaryMarcus Gary, this isn’t a SCANDAL. The released o3 models are actually closer to winning the prize than o3-preview. Pricing is on a log scale.

They might not perform as well (o3-preview was finetuned for ARC AGI), but they’re over 100x cheaper.

If anything, this is very impressive.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
271d
MAJOR SCANDAL: OpenAI’s wildly hyped December o3 ARC demo can’t readily be replicated with the released model.

If that doesn’t give you Theranos vibes, I am not sure what will. Especially in conjunction with the fact that they had privileged access to FrontierMath that they
Toby Ord
@tobyordoxford
·
272d
@arcprize @OpenAI 2. The @arcprize team tried to test a high-compute version of o3, but it kept failing to answer. They spent >$50,000 trying to get it to work, but couldn't, so those December results can't realistically be replicated with the released model.

The statement critiques a company's failure to deliver on advertised promises, engaging in a discussion about transparency and product performance. It addresses public concerns about corporate accountability and consumer expectations.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement highlights a potential issue of misleading advertising, which could harm consumer trust, thus slightly violating the principle of doing no harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects privacy and dignity, focusing on the company's actions rather than personal attacks. [+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, pointing out discrepancies between advertisement and delivery without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]