Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
5/19/2025, 12:51:44 AM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
251d
@GaryMarcus @TimHenke9 @Nicky_Bonez If you want to point to one argument you believe I’ve ignored that’s relevant (not 10 loosely related points) I’ll do my best to comment.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
251d
@GaryMarcus @TimHenke9 @Nicky_Bonez I am engaging with the arguments I think are relevant to the question. For example you’ve written very extensively about USAMO results but you seem to agree with the basic point about OOD math performance!
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
251d
@littmath @TimHenke9 @Nicky_Bonez You are consistently not engaging in most of my arguments and I am finding that disrespectful.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
251d
@GaryMarcus @TimHenke9 @Nicky_Bonez Ok, I think it’s quite strong evidence. I agree it’s not definitive on its own but it’s not as if it’s the only example we have of high performance OOD.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
251d
@littmath @TimHenke9 @Nicky_Bonez It’s *evidence*, but not *definitive* for all the reasons I have enumerated in our recent discussion.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
251d
@GaryMarcus @TimHenke9 @Nicky_Bonez Ok, if we agree on this, it would help if you say why you don’t think high performance on OOD math questions isn’t evidence for intelligence.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of out-of-distribution (OOD) studies in reasoning and planning, which is a relevant issue in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning. The conversation involves multiple participants discussing the validity and implications of OOD performance as evidence of intelligence.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm; it is a factual observation about findings from various entities. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement contributes to understanding by referencing findings from multiple sources, which can promote further discussion and 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 is part of a dialogue and does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. It maintains a focus on the topic rather than the individuals involved. [+1]