Gary Marcus

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 41
5/10/2025, 2:00:49 AM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
28d
@GaryMarcus @Wasgo @polynoamial Ok. FWIW what I find frustrating about this conversation is that you keep turning to points on which we agree (lots of AI hype, adoption will be slow) and arguing as if I disagree, while avoiding the actual subject I’m interested in (what does “scaling laws failed” mean).
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
28d
@littmath @Wasgo @polynoamial Experts could adjudicate many; I don’t think that’s fair,

It would be labor intensive and to some degree subjective, but I bet you could consensus on most. (Whether i turned out to be correct or not)
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
28d
@GaryMarcus @Wasgo @polynoamial Most of these are claims about adoption of AI, which I agree will be slow. The only one that’s both precise enough to adjudicate and about capabilities is about video models and physics, where I’d bet against you.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
28d
@littmath @Wasgo @polynoamial Which claims that I made in this are likely to be wrong?

https://garymarcus.substack.com/…
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
28d
@GaryMarcus @Wasgo @polynoamial I’ve put money on the line that specific strong claims about AI capabilities are overstated (see e.g. here: https://manifold.markets/TamayBe…). But I also think you’re substantially understating them.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
28d
@GaryMarcus @Wasgo @polynoamial I think it’s a stupid graph. Not sure why you’re asking me to comment on dumb ai hype when I’m discussing a specific (if slightly imprecise) claim about scaling.

The statement 'It means those kinds of graphs and projections were inaccurate' is part of a broader discussion on AI predictions and scaling laws. The conversation involves evaluating the accuracy of AI-related claims and projections, which is a substantive engagement with public issues related to technology and its future impact.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but points out inaccuracies in projections, which can be seen as a neutral or corrective action.
  2. 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 personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. It focuses on the accuracy of the graphs and projections, which is a form of constructive criticism. [+1]