Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
5/18/2025, 2:15:58 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
249d
@GaryMarcus @XRobservatory And I know your view is that reasonable extensions current classes of models won't get to human level reasoning - which seems plausible to me, though I'm more skeptical of the claim.

But I'm mostly worried about what happens after that point, whenever we get there.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
249d
@GaryMarcus @XRobservatory Unsure, but absolutely not. There are lots of places where the best models do worse than humans.

On the other hand, there are tons of places where humans do worse than the models - so by the time models can do everything humans can, they'll be much stronger than humans overall.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
249d
@davidmanheim @XRobservatory what do you think is the best current model? are you saying it would be hard to find any serious errors there?
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
249d
@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
·
249d
@GaryMarcus Also, the most recent models are able to do this just fine.
Existential Risk Observatory ⏸
@XRobservatory
·
249d
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
·
250d
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 discussion about AI development and its implications, focusing on the potential future impact of AI advancements. It acknowledges the importance of considering long-term consequences, even if they are not immediate, and highlights the need for innovation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm and encourages thoughtful consideration of future AI developments. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by acknowledging the importance of future implications and innovation in AI. [+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 constructively with differing views on AI development timelines. [+1]