Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
5/17/2025, 11:57:48 PM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
240d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z Anyway, sorry about that; I understood you to be asking me to rebut your past work as a whole (as opposed to the less unreasonable ask that I rebut one article).
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
240d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z Ah, sorry I misunderstood. FWIW I think the article you linked is a reasonable example of my complaint—you link to a lot of papers (e.g. the 20x20 multiplication task) which show a mix of successes and failures in OOD tasks and pull out only the failures.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
240d
@littmath @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z NOOOO!

I did not ask you why MY writing is unpersuasive.

I asked you to look at large body of work and you blew it off and personalized it.
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.

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the evaluation of AI models' performance, specifically addressing the need for a comprehensive understanding of the subject by considering multiple sources and perspectives. It encourages the interlocutor to engage with a wider range of materials to gain a broader perspective, suggesting a constructive approach to the debate.

  1. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by encouraging the interlocutor to read a variety of sources to gain a broader perspective, which aligns with promoting empathy and understanding. [+1]
  2. 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 by suggesting the interlocutor consider additional materials rather than resorting to personal attacks, thus adhering to the principle of constructive criticism. [+1]