Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
4/27/2025, 3:06:15 PM
X
In reply to:
Anders Sandberg
@anderssandberg
·
264d
@davidmanheim Oh no, the academic status game of citation farming is perfect for RL applications.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
264d
@anderssandberg Sounds like you're saying there is some alpha useful for juicing citation counts by rewriting the same papers in new words while updating the context to whatever new models were built - at least until LLMs finish automating that type of work and flooding us with garbage.
Anders Sandberg
@anderssandberg
·
264d
@davidmanheim But it was a *decade* ago! You cannot expect people to remember papers that old. Modern people feel like they were written in cuneiform by the Ancients!
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
264d
Funny how 'we'll just add RL to LLMs' became the plan, and nobody stopped to remember that RL was the original alignment nightmare.

The statement is a sarcastic remark suggesting that citation farming in academia could be likened to medical billing scams, implying a critique of both practices. It engages in public discourse by addressing issues related to academic integrity and the potential misuse of systems for personal gain.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses sarcasm, which could be seen as harmful if interpreted as trivializing serious issues like medical billing scams. However, it does not directly harm individuals. [-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 does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it could be seen as disrespectful to those involved in academic practices or medical billing. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it uses sarcasm to critique rather than foster dialogue. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it uses sarcasm instead of providing a reasoned argument or engaging with differing viewpoints. [-1]