Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
5/17/2025, 11:37:24 PM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
239d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z I have read it and found it unpersuasive.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
239d
@littmath @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z I think that they can do a limited form of analogical like reasoning in some cases but that their comprehension remains superficial, and that there are still vast numbers of basic problems they fail if trivial things like variable names are changed.

I don’t get the sense that
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.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the capabilities of AI in solving complex problems, engaging in a debate about AI's intelligence and problem-solving abilities. The tone is critical, pointing out a lack of specific counterarguments from the other party.

  1. 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 pointing out the lack of specific counterarguments, which is a valid form of critique in a debate. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]