Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 81
5/10/2025, 3:13:01 AM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
174d
@Wasgo @littmath @polynoamial But the thing is that half a trillion was invested on their being specific constants that made specific quantitative predictions that turned out to be wrong.
Cameron Williams
@Wasgo
·
174d
@littmath @GaryMarcus @polynoamial I think that’s the split here. You’re talking about the technical claims, Gary is talking about the popular claims that misuse technical words while ignoring their actual technical meaning.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
174d
@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
·
174d
@littmath @Wasgo @polynoamial It means those kinds of graphs and projections were inaccurate
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
174d
@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
·
174d
@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)

The statement is part of a technical discussion about the accuracy of predictions related to scaling laws in AI, involving multiple participants. It addresses the issue of how technical claims are communicated and understood, which is a public concern in the context of AI development and investment.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions, as it is part of a technical discussion.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to clarify a technical point, which can promote understanding, but it does not explicitly promote empathy or compassion.
  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 dialogue without personal attacks, focusing on the technical aspects of the discussion. [+1]