Gary Marcus

Rank 21 of 47
|
Score 55
5/10/2025, 2:04:43 AM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
27d
@GaryMarcus @Wasgo @polynoamial Ok, I think this is not what most people would understand “scaling laws failed” to mean, but I appreciate the clarification.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
27d
@littmath @Wasgo @polynoamial It means those kinds of graphs and projections were inaccurate
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
27d
@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
·
27d
@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
·
27d
@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
·
27d
@littmath @Wasgo @polynoamial Which claims that I made in this are likely to be wrong?

https://garymarcus.substack.com/…

The statement is part of a broader conversation about AI predictions and the interpretation of 'scaling laws failed.' It engages with public discourse on AI development and its implications, which are significant societal issues.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm; it seeks clarification, which is neutral in terms of harm.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by asking for clarification, which can lead to better comprehension of the topic. [+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 asking what others think, rather than attacking or dismissing others' views. [+1]