Gary Marcus

Rank 10 of 47
|
Score 125
6/8/2025, 1:52:06 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
40d
@shinboson @rao2z i don’t see your link.

a teen (who was sufficiently interested) would do it on an actual tower.
𝞍 Shin Megami Boson 𝞍
@shinboson
·
40d
@GaryMarcus @rao2z Also I flat out don’t believe that a typical “bright teenager” can write out the correct sequence of 255 moves for the 8 disk tower of Hanoi problem from their head without transcription errors. I don’t believe the paper even claims this fwiw.
𝞍 Shin Megami Boson 𝞍
@shinboson
·
40d
@GaryMarcus @rao2z Gary I did implement it. See the link. I implemented it 48 minutes after you said it couldn’t be done.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
41d
@shinboson It’s not a trivial test; it’s failure modes are not in fact same as people (e.g. a bright teenager can easily learn to do 8 discs), and if you can trviially implement with a scratchpad, you should do so and demonstrate it. you should also read the related work by @rao2z that i
𝞍 Shin Megami Boson 𝞍
@shinboson
·
41d
@GaryMarcus 1) what this paper evaluates is very specifically whether LLMs are able to perfectly *execute* a formal algorithm without any sort of scratchpad or tooling like symbolic reasoning

2) this paper determines that LLMs are bad at this, which is a trivial result and also so are we
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
41d
See you later, LLM’s?

Weekend long read on how the new Apple paper spells trouble, though not quite the end:

[The link you need to type is in bottom left of the image, because Elon]

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) and their comparison to human problem-solving abilities. The conversation involves a challenge regarding the Tower of Hanoi problem, highlighting a teenager's ability to solve it quickly. The tone is lighthearted and somewhat competitive, focusing on demonstrating human capability in contrast to LLMs.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm and is part of a constructive demonstration of human capability. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by showcasing a real-world example of problem-solving. [+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 providing evidence in a debate about LLM capabilities. [+1]