Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
5/18/2025, 12:12:39 AM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
240d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z Ok, I agree we can’t know for sure but I’m fairly sure the questions I’m asking are OOD. I don’t think OpenAI has access to some vast cache of algebraic geometry problems I’m not aware of. I also think you overestimate the extent to which math is cheaply verifiable.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
240d
@littmath @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z I want to see it in domains where you can’t brute force with a ton of verifiable data augmentation.

Or in those augmentation domains, if we can actually see the training set and hence discuss in an informed way what OOD even is.

You can’t know for sure what is OOD if you don’t
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
240d
@GaryMarcus @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z What would demonstrate reliable OOD for you? A top score on the next USAMO?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
240d
@littmath @colin_fraser @MelMitchell1 @rao2z My point there is that there is not reliable OOD.

There is not.
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.

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing concerns about the integrity of academic competitions and the potential influence of financial incentives on educational practices. It raises questions about the fairness and transparency of results in high-stakes environments, which are relevant public issues.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm others but implies suspicion without concrete evidence, which could indirectly cause harm by casting doubt on individuals or organizations involved. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in direct harassment or hate speech, but it does imply wrongdoing without specific evidence, which could affect the dignity of those involved. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement raises concerns that could lead to greater understanding and transparency if addressed constructively, but it lacks a tone of empathy or compassion.
  4. 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 does not engage in personal attacks but suggests suspicion without engaging in constructive dialogue or providing evidence. [-1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement does not acknowledge any mistakes or provide a basis for correction, as it is primarily an expression of suspicion.
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to raise awareness of potential issues in academic competitions, which could be seen as a positive use of influence if substantiated. [+1]
  7. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement exercises free speech but could be more responsible by providing evidence or engaging in constructive dialogue.