Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 114
5/6/2025, 2:25:55 PM
X
In reply to:
Mike Brooks
@DrMikeBrooks
·
87d
@GaryMarcus @ArrowFodder You can’t prove a future that hasn’t happened. We live in an indeterminant universe. You know that!
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
87d
@DrMikeBrooks @ArrowFodder what i just said is a fact.
Mike Brooks
@DrMikeBrooks
·
87d
@GaryMarcus @ArrowFodder We will see! Gary, you know just as well as I do, that there are people as smart and as technical as you who disagree. Just keep extending the timeline. The problem is, the progress we evolved to make has resulted in us creating a world we didn’t evolve to inhabit.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
87d
@DrMikeBrooks @ArrowFodder Improvement is NOT inevitable. Hallucinations just got WORSE in o3, for example.
Mike Brooks
@DrMikeBrooks
·
87d
@ArrowFodder @GaryMarcus I think both things are true. There are significant problems – AND it will get better. Human beings are very good at making things better when there are profits to be made, markets to be dominated and egos to be enhanced. I use 4 models simultaneously. They are definitely better.
ArrowFodder
@ArrowFodder
·
87d
@DrMikeBrooks @GaryMarcus You are anthropomorphizing it. It’s not on its way to getting better. The edge cases are significant because they reveal how the GenAI/LLM actually functions in its current state. The frequency of hallucinations are not trending down as data sets get bigger.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of AI development and its challenges, specifically addressing the issue of hallucinations in AI models. The tone is corrective and slightly dismissive, as the speaker points out a misunderstanding and decides to mute the other participant temporarily.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm, but the decision to mute the other participant could be seen as dismissive, potentially stifling open dialogue.
  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 or hate speech, but the act of muting could be perceived as disrespectful to the dignity of the other participant. [-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 lacks constructive criticism and dialogue, as it opts for muting rather than engaging in further discussion. [-1]