Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
5/10/2025, 9:41:21 PM
X
In reply to:
Will Bryk
@WilliamBryk
·
62d
@GaryMarcus I think it hasn't happened yet bc for a long time the best models were like highschoolers or dumber and they could only respond right away, and that would never reach discoveries.

But in the past few months we've gotten phd-level intelligences that could think for a long time.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
62d
Or … it’s exactly what you would expect?
Will Bryk
@WilliamBryk
·
63d
It's honestly insane that LLMs haven't discovered something significant yet.

I believe this is a skill issue.

No one has tried to call these phd-level LLMs thousands of times with the right arxiv papers streaming in, prompted in all the right ways, chaos and randomness

The statement engages in a discussion about the capabilities of AI, particularly large language models (LLMs), in making scientific discoveries. It critiques the notion that AI reaching a 'PhD-level' intelligence equates to originality, a key component of scientific discovery. The tone is critical and analytical, questioning the assumptions about AI's potential in research.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and contributes to a critical discussion about AI's role in science. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by challenging assumptions about AI's capabilities, encouraging deeper thought about what constitutes originality in research. [+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 criticism without personal attacks, focusing on the topic rather than individuals. [+1]