Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
4/30/2025, 1:29:06 AM
X
In reply to:
MindMirror
@TheMysteryDrop
·
257d
@GaryMarcus @samuelaxon He’s saying it will be superhuman at most coding tasks, but allowing for an [increasingly narrow] set of tasks where top SWEs are still necessary.

Again, feels eminently reasonable given the pace of progress with coding agents and tool use.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
257d
@TheMysteryDrop @samuelaxon “better than the average very good person on the [highly selective Meta] team” is not just better than the average good SWE.
MindMirror
@TheMysteryDrop
·
257d
@GaryMarcus @samuelaxon I did. He’s claiming AI will be better than most good SWEs at the end-to-end software dev lifecycle, and will generate a majority of code, but he’s allowing for a jagged frontier otherwise he would have used the word “all” instead of “most”.
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.

The statement is part of a discussion on the capabilities of AI in software development, specifically regarding its potential to outperform human software engineers. The tone is corrective and seeks to clarify a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of a previous statement. The intent is to address a specific point in the ongoing debate about AI's role in coding tasks.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is focused on clarifying a point, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does aim to clarify a misunderstanding, which can contribute to better understanding. [+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 refrains from personal attacks and focuses on the content of the discussion, adhering to the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue. [+1]