Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
4/29/2025, 1:12:58 PM
X
In reply to:
Tyler John
@tyler_m_john
·
260d
@GaryMarcus What would you count as no-vibes? I recall you being critical of benchmarks and other ways of measuring progress
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
260d
@tyler_m_john What’s the most impressive, well-documented (no vibes) piece of alignment progress?
Tyler John
@tyler_m_john
·
260d
@GaryMarcus However I think "they already are" is a bad sleight of hand. The first generation is always the most likely to fail, and it gets better from there.
Tyler John
@tyler_m_john
·
260d
@GaryMarcus Depends on your standard for robustness. As someone who some people would describe as a doomer, I'll admit the progress on alignment from GPT-2 to GPT-4 was very impressive. But also brittle!
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
260d
@tyler_m_john Has there been any real, robust advance in transformer safety, ever?

It’s something people dream of, not something they have done.

ps. Of course this generation of agents will fail. They already are. They can’t even do online shopping.
Tyler John
@tyler_m_john
·
260d
@GaryMarcus I don't dismiss that view out of hand. I think a lot of people who work on transformer safety think it might be impossible.

Though some arguments for this position imply that the agent paradigm will fail abysmally. (I know you expect that.) We'll know soon.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of AI alignment and safety, engaging in a substantive discussion about the progress and challenges in the field. The tone is inquisitive and seeks to understand the most impressive systematic research in the area, indicating a desire for evidence-based discussion.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm and is focused on seeking information rather than making harmful assertions. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by asking for systematic research that impresses the respondent, which can lead to a more informed discussion. [+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 dialogue by asking a question that encourages further discussion and avoids personal attacks. [+1]