Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
5/17/2025, 11:43:11 PM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
239d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z I’m in a couple of things you’ve written, but the only things reported therein are my negative comments on AI capabilities. I also found your reporting of FrontierMath to be incomplete based on my own experience with it. These experiences have affected how I read your writing.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
239d
@littmath @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z I pointed to many works: you named none, and refuted zero specific arguments.

THAT is unpersuasive.
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.

The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages in a debate about AI capabilities and critiques the quality of a response in the context of a broader discussion on AI's ability to solve complex problems. The tone is critical but aims to encourage a more substantive engagement with the topic.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement acknowledges the ad hominem nature of the previous comment and encourages a more respectful and substantive reply, aligning with the principle of doing no harm with words. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    By pointing out the ad hominem nature of the previous comment, the statement implicitly respects the dignity of others and discourages personal attacks. [+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 promotes constructive criticism by highlighting the weaknesses in the previous reply and urging a more thorough engagement with the topic. [+1]