Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
5/19/2025, 6:29:24 PM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
254d
@GaryMarcus @typingloudly Sorry, can you make your point explicitly? I have no idea what a “rare” prime is supposed to be and I’m a number theorist.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
254d
@littmath @typingloudly one that is rarely discussed in the corpus.

thus precisely on point.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
254d
@GaryMarcus @typingloudly That said I just looked at the conversation and I don’t think it really shows anything very interesting, even about GPT 4.1. What is a “rare prime”?
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
254d
@GaryMarcus @typingloudly Yes, GPT 4.1 is not very good at math. No one disputes this.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
254d
@typingloudly Copying @littmath.

A failure on uncommon things but not common ones is certainly a hallmark of problems with out of distribution generalization.

Can you include a screenshot?
Typing Loudly ⌨️
@typingloudly
·
254d
@GaryMarcus Wow I just did some prime number experiments with GPT 4.1 and you're right. It's fucking terrible at talking about uncommon primes, often refusing to even think of uncommon primes, and frequently makes shit up very confidently.

The statement is part of a technical discussion about the performance of GPT 4.1 in handling uncommon or 'rare' primes, which touches on the broader issue of AI's ability to generalize from data. This constitutes public discourse as it engages with the public issue of AI capabilities and limitations.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and maintains a neutral tone, focusing on clarifying a technical point. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to clarify a technical concept, which can promote understanding among participants in the discussion. [+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 addressing a misunderstanding and providing an explanation without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]