Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
5/18/2025, 1:10:23 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
247d
@GaryMarcus o3 is a recent model, but 1) you're using image generation instead of letting the model do it the way that succeeds, 2) it's not the most recent or most powerful model, and 3) failure here doesn't show that it doesn't understand clocks, it just can't generate images of them.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
247d
@davidmanheim O3 is a recent model and failed. So it’s is obviously not fully reliable.
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 is part of a technical discussion about the capabilities of language models (LLMs) in generating images and understanding concepts like time zones. The tone is analytical and seeks clarification on the legitimacy of using image generation as a test for LLM capabilities. It questions the predictability of model performance based on training details.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is focused on understanding technical aspects. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by questioning and seeking clarification on technical issues. [+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 dialogue by questioning the criteria used to evaluate LLMs. [+1]