Gary Marcus

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 43
5/10/2025, 1:37:19 AM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
30d
@GaryMarcus @Wasgo @polynoamial Ok, I don’t think OpenAI’s naming scheme is really important here. I was trying to get to the bottom of the claim about scaling laws. As I understand it Altman etc. claim “intelligence scales logarithmically with compute.” Are you saying this is false? If so, why?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
30d
@littmath @Wasgo @polynoamial Some people are saying “[exponential] scaling continues, and it is just that benchmarks have saturated”, and I think this is a bad take.

My take is that exponentially increasing data and compute failed to solve the core problems (hallucinations and boneheaded errors) and nothing
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
30d
@GaryMarcus @Wasgo @polynoamial Ok, I don’t understand what this means.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
30d
@littmath @Wasgo @polynoamial The fact that we don’t have gpt-5 isn’t because the benchmarks have saturated.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
30d
@Wasgo @GaryMarcus @polynoamial I don’t think it needs to be formal to be a claim we can try to evaluate heuristically by benchmarking. Lots of benchmarks seem to scale logarithmically with compute in some (pre-saturation) regime.
Cameron Williams
@Wasgo
·
30d
@littmath @GaryMarcus @polynoamial Is there any formal definition for this version of the law though? Altman refers to intelligence which isn’t actually a defined standard. He seems to cherry pick what intelligence means every time he refers to it.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the effectiveness and limitations of AI models, specifically addressing the claims about scaling laws and the performance of AI models. The tone is skeptical and critical, questioning the results and improvements claimed by AI labs.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language but expresses skepticism about the results of AI labs, which is a legitimate part of public discourse.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it focuses on criticism without offering constructive suggestions or insights. [-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 criticism by questioning the results and claims of AI labs, which is a valid part of public discourse. However, it could be more constructive by providing specific examples or evidence to support the skepticism. [+1]