Gary Marcus

Rank 21 of 47
|
Score 47
5/10/2025, 1:39:44 AM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
30d
@GaryMarcus @Wasgo @polynoamial This is all consistent with logarithmic growth, which is very slow!
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
30d
@littmath @Wasgo @polynoamial I seriously doubt it at this point. All the labs have leaked that they aren’t getting the results they thought they would, and none of the new models cures the core problems that I have harped for decades.

Largish improvements now are from new techniques and focused data
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.

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the growth and development of AI models, specifically addressing the debate between exponential and logarithmic scaling in AI advancements. It engages with public discourse by contributing to a conversation about technological progress and its implications.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm directly, but it uses a somewhat sarcastic tone that could be seen as dismissive.
  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 uses sarcasm rather than constructive dialogue. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it uses sarcasm instead of addressing the points made in the conversation. [-1]