Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
4/30/2025, 1:24:05 AM
X
In reply to:
AnthrOpenSeekMind
@ILoveLLMZ
·
257d
@GaryMarcus @TheMysteryDrop @samuelaxon Gary, what do you think will happen as cot reasoning is combined with multi odality and much better memory
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
257d
@TheMysteryDrop @samuelaxon watch the video that i quote, esp part about finding issues and improving code.
MindMirror
@TheMysteryDrop
·
257d
@GaryMarcus @samuelaxon Fair, but I don't think the claim is that all AI generated code will be better than top SWEs - there may still be holes and a somewhat jagged frontier - but that for a majority of tasks AI generated code will be better.

This seems reasonable given the trajectory of progress.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
257d
@TheMysteryDrop @samuelaxon he specifically claimed they would be better at debugging than top engineers in 12-18 months in the post.

i really don’t see that happening that fast.
MindMirror
@TheMysteryDrop
·
257d
@GaryMarcus @samuelaxon How good do you think the average SWE is at this benchmark? AI doesn't need to hit 100% to soak up >50%.

Note that Zuck isn't claiming 100% of software will be AI generated - just the majority - and that there will be a role for top SWEs to cover the holes for the time being.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
257d
@TheMysteryDrop @samuelaxon driverless cars were (I imagine) greater than 80% correct a decade ago; the last bit is always hard.

The statement is part of a technical discussion about the future capabilities of AI in software engineering, specifically regarding reasoning, multi-modality, and memory. It seeks clarification on what 'better memory' means in this context, indicating a desire for a deeper understanding of the topic.

  1. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by seeking clarification on a technical aspect, which can lead to a more informed discussion. [+1]
  2. 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 constructively by asking a question rather than making assumptions or personal attacks. [+1]