Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
5/17/2025, 11:49:08 PM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
240d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z As for “be better,” you asked why I find your writing on this unpersuasive. It’s because when you talk about subjects that I know a lot about, including my own commentary, your writing doesn’t match my understanding of the situation. Not sure how else I can convey my complaint.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
240d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z I replied about USAMO here. I just don’t understand your argument; why is poor performance on USAMO indicative of non-intelligence if they perform well on other OOD tasks?
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
240d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z They’re hard proof questions, which are indeed difficult for frontier models. There’s nothing to explain.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
240d
@littmath @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z Dude. Aside from that being ad hominem and a bit insulting, it fails to address the USAMO result and the work by multiple authors. as such it is a pretty weak reply.

be better.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
240d
@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
·
240d
@littmath @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z I pointed to many works: you named none, and refuted zero specific arguments.

THAT is unpersuasive.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
240d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z I have read it and found it unpersuasive.

The statement is part of a public discourse involving a debate on AI capabilities and the interpretation of performance on specific tasks like the USAMO. The tone is defensive and accusatory, indicating a disagreement over the interpretation of previous comments and the perceived personalization of criticism.

  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 violates the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue. It accuses the other party of personalizing the critique rather than addressing the substance of the argument, which detracts from constructive engagement. [-1]