Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
5/17/2025, 11:32:24 PM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
239d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z Re: “all,” I’m not sure I understand your position. You concede they can solve some OOD problems but say that’s not enough to call them intelligent.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
239d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z I mean, I regularly ask them hard math problems that they reliably get correct; e.g. I wrote a thread about one of the FrontierMath problems of this form.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
239d
@littmath @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z What is it that you think they can solve very reliably?

I didn’t say all and would appreciate your not putting words in my mouth.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
239d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z Let me put it this way—they can very reliably solve some out-of-distribution hard problems that humans can’t reliably solve. Being able to solve *all* problems is not a pre-condition for intelligence; otherwise people aren’t intelligent.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
239d
@littmath @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z Some, but not reliably. They can’t even solve large multiplication problems reliably.

LLMs exceed their predecessors but demonstrably still have not solved this problem, which is most clear when the training set is known, and when direct data augmentation is not possible.

Some
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
239d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z They’re clearly generalizing out of distribution. E.g. they can solve some novel math problems.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the capabilities of AI models, specifically their ability to perform analogical reasoning and solve out-of-distribution problems. The tone is analytical and critical, focusing on the limitations of AI comprehension.

  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 respectful tone, adhering to the principle of doing no harm with words. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding by discussing the limitations of AI, which can foster a more informed discussion about AI capabilities. [+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 by addressing the limitations of AI without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]