Gary Marcus

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 93
5/10/2025, 3:13:36 AM
X
In reply to:
Cameron Williams
@Wasgo
·
9d
@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
·
9d
@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
·
9d
@littmath @Wasgo @polynoamial It means those kinds of graphs and projections were inaccurate
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
9d
@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
·
9d
@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
·
9d
@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.

The statement is part of a technical discussion about AI claims, specifically focusing on the interpretation of 'scaling laws' and the distinction between technical and popular claims. It engages in a substantive debate about AI technology, which constitutes public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and maintains a neutral tone, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement seeks to clarify a technical point, which can promote understanding, but it does not explicitly promote empathy or compassion. [+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 a technical clarification without personal attacks, adhering to the principle of constructive dialogue. [+1]