Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
5/12/2025, 6:10:58 PM
X
In reply to:
Jeremy Nguyen ✍🏼 🚢
@JeremyNguyenPhD
·
223d
@GaryMarcus You honestly don't find LLMs vastly smarter than two years ago?

Even just with o1, months ago, I put in a PhD student's work that they worked on for months. An unpublished new original result.

o1 got it in maybe 90 seconds. GPT-4 or 3.5 was nowhere near that level.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
223d
AI doesn’t feel vastly smarter than two years ago because … it isn’t.

Taking IQ as a measure of how smart these systems are is itself not smart.
Dan Hendrycks
@DanHendrycks
·
225d
AI models are dramatically improving at IQ tests (70 IQ → 120), yet they don't feel vastly smarter than two years ago.

At their current level of intelligence, rehashing existing human writings will work better than leaning on their own intelligence to produce novel analysis.

The conversation involves a discussion on the intelligence of AI models, specifically their performance on IQ tests and practical applications. The initial statement questions the perceived intelligence of AI, while the response highlights a specific instance of AI outperforming human effort. The reply 'what was “it”?' seeks clarification, indicating an interest in understanding the context or specifics of the example given.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The discussion is generally respectful and does not cause harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The conversation promotes understanding by discussing AI capabilities and limitations. [+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 dialogue is constructive, with participants engaging in a debate about AI intelligence. [+1]