Gary Marcus

Rank 20 of 47
|
Score 52
5/10/2025, 1:00:35 AM
X
In reply to:
Cameron Williams
@Wasgo
·
131d
@GaryMarcus @littmath @polynoamial Even this post notes it’s not performance scaling:

“…test loss is not an easily interpretable metric and try to predict a variety of other performance metrics. For example, a scaling law is fit to predict the LLM’s pass rate on the HumanEval coding benchmark.”
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
131d
@Wasgo @littmath @polynoamial This is perhaps a good review of the various claims that have been made

https://cameronrwolfe.substack.c…
Cameron Williams
@Wasgo
·
131d
@littmath @GaryMarcus @polynoamial There’s two entirely different meanings of AI scaling laws. OpenAI covers theirs in their papers and it’s not about model performance, it’s about fitting vs overfitting. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.08361

The general public talk about scaling laws as performance and there’s no definition.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
131d
@GaryMarcus @polynoamial I’m not sure I understand. Is the claim that scaling laws were predicting faster than logarithmic returns to scale, or that actual returns to scale are slower than logarithmic?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
131d
@littmath @polynoamial as i understand it the “chinchilla laws” no longer hold, and people no longer got the return for increases in compute and data that they were expecting per those alleged laws (but instead got diminishing though non zero returns).
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
131d
@GaryMarcus @polynoamial Is it actually the case that scaling laws failed? Or is it that the claim was that scaling was logarithmic, so eventually the returns to scale aren’t worth it?

The statement discusses the relationship between AI model intelligence and the resources used to train and run it, suggesting a logarithmic relationship. It engages in public discourse by addressing AI development and resource allocation, which are significant topics in technology and ethics.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is a neutral observation about AI scaling.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by explaining a technical concept in AI development. [+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 contributing to a discussion on AI scaling laws. [+1]