Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
5/16/2025, 10:00:05 PM
X
In reply to:
VraserX e/acc
@VraserX
·
229d
@GaryMarcus @OverfitForTruth @ylecun By that logic, we shouldn’t credit humans either, since our brains “work with other components” like language, memory, and tools. The LLM is the reasoning engine the rest is scaffolding. The real breakthrough is that an LLM-centered system just broke new ground in math and
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
229d
@VraserX @OverfitForTruth @ylecun is my nemesis, but this is not fair to him.

This isn’t LLMs, it’s LLM plus other components.

If you can’t keep your eye on the ball of what the architecture is, you probably shouldn’t be commenting here.
VraserX e/acc
@VraserX
·
229d
@OverfitForTruth LeCun claims LLMs can’t reason, invent, or do real science. But AlphaEvolve, built on LLM-like components proved him very wrong:

• It discovered a new lower bound in an open math problem (11D kissing number → from 592 to 593) – something no human had found.
• It reinvented
john
@OverfitForTruth
·
229d
@VraserX wait has it? what was his claims and how did alphaevolve disprove it?
VraserX e/acc
@VraserX
·
229d
Google’s AlphaEvolved has essentially proven Yann LeCun wrong. Thoughts?

The statement is part of a public discourse on the capabilities and credit of LLMs (Large Language Models) in scientific discovery, specifically in the context of AI's role in reasoning and innovation. The tone is dismissive and somewhat condescending, as it implies confusion on the part of the addressed individuals.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm, as it dismisses the other party's understanding in a condescending manner, potentially causing harm to the discourse by undermining respectful dialogue. [-1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it dismisses the other party's perspective without attempting to bridge understanding. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It uses a metaphor to dismiss the other party's argument without addressing the substance of their points, which could be seen as a form of ad hominem argument. [-1]