Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
5/17/2025, 11:44:02 PM
X
In reply to:
Colin Fraser
@colin_fraser
·
239d
@GaryMarcus @littmath @MelMitchell1 @rao2z Yeah definitely not 40 digit multiplication but I think they do pretty well up to about 20 iirc, which still proves that some ood action is going on. It didn’t just memorize the whole 1e20 x 1e20 times table.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
239d
@colin_fraser @littmath @MelMitchell1 @rao2z But that is what I said: some OOD.

I haven’t actually seen good results in 40 digit multiplication. let alone more complex functions that would be trivial for a calculator.

And of course there are your river crossing problems etc which many humans can easily solve that these
Colin Fraser
@colin_fraser
·
239d
@GaryMarcus @littmath @MelMitchell1 @rao2z On one hand the problems it solves correctly are ood. On the other hand so are the ones it doesn’t.
Colin Fraser
@colin_fraser
·
239d
@GaryMarcus @littmath @MelMitchell1 @rao2z Pretty reliable at adding pairs of numbers under 40 digits or so. Pretty unreliable above. This is evidence for both sides of this argument depending on how you frame it.
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 technical discussion about the capabilities of AI in solving mathematical problems, specifically focusing on out-of-distribution (OOD) tasks. The conversation involves multiple participants discussing the reliability and predictability of AI in handling complex calculations. The tone is analytical and focused on evaluating AI performance, which contributes to public discourse on AI capabilities and limitations.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is part of a technical discussion, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement is neutral and does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does contribute to a technical understanding of AI capabilities.
  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 dialogue without personal attacks, adhering to the principle of constructive criticism. [+1]