Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
5/18/2025, 1:07:53 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
247d
@uhbif19 @XRobservatory @GaryMarcus was initially claiming that "LLMs that don’t understand clocks and time zones." I agree that image generation is not yet at a point where it gets this right, and that's a real flaw in the models, but the original claim as stated is false.
There is no other room 🇬🇪
@uhbif19
·
247d
@davidmanheim @XRobservatory But that is code, the issue is with the direct image output.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
247d
@XRobservatory How about this - we don't need to push to do anything substantive about banning more risky models until LLMs can generate accurate clocks.

...can we get started now?
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
247d
@GaryMarcus Also, the most recent models are able to do this just fine.
Existential Risk Observatory ⏸
@XRobservatory
·
247d
Everyone always said AI was going to be spiky: being great at some things humans are bad at, while being bad at other things humans are good at. Repeating the latter is not an argument.

What we should do instead is raise awareness and implement timeline-independent regulation!
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 engages in a technical discussion about AI capabilities, specifically addressing the limitations of language models in understanding time zones and generating accurate images. It questions the psychological mechanisms behind such errors, contributing to a broader conversation about AI development and safety.

  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 constructive dialogue about AI limitations. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by exploring the psychological aspects of AI errors, encouraging deeper analysis. [+1]
  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 criticism without personal attacks, focusing on the technical aspects of AI. [+1]