Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
5/18/2025, 1:02:48 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
247d
@GaryMarcus Also, the most recent models are able to do this just fine.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
247d
@GaryMarcus So, let me get this straight, a bunch of basically upright chimps with a rock collection they called technology are going to send rockets to the moon?

No, their successors will. And did. The question is how quickly those successors develop.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
247d
So, let me get this straight, a bunch of LLMs that don’t understand clocks and time zones (to say nothing of chess boards and the rules of chess) are going to kill us all before the end of the decade?

I am all for studying AI safety but can we please decouple it from ludicrous
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
247d
So, let me get this straight, a bunch of LLMs that don’t understand clocks and time zones (to say nothing of chess boards and the rules of chess) are going to kill us all before the end of the decade?

I am all for studying AI safety but can we please decouple it from ludicrous

The statement critiques the reliability of a recent model, O3, in the context of a discussion about AI capabilities. The tone is critical and dismissive, suggesting that the model's failure indicates its unreliability.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but dismisses the model's reliability without detailed evidence, which could be seen as a minor violation of constructive discourse. [-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 does not engage in personal attacks but lacks constructive criticism or dialogue, focusing instead on a negative assessment. [-1]