Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 76
6/8/2025, 2:05:57 PM
X
In reply to:
Flowers
@flowersslop
·
38d
@GaryMarcus @shinboson @rao2z Yes but to be fair it is also lot easier to do on an actual tower in the physical world. It would be way harder for that kid to just say the moves out loud without a tower at all.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
38d
@shinboson @rao2z here’s a teen doing it fast, with one hand behind his back

https://www.tiktok.com/@json_sin…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
38d
@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
·
38d
@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
·
38d
@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
·
39d
@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

The statement is part of a technical discussion about the capabilities of AI and human memory limitations in solving the Tower of Hanoi problem. It engages with public discourse by addressing the broader topic of AI versus human cognitive abilities.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and maintains a neutral tone, focusing on technical aspects rather than personal attacks. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by discussing the differences between AI and human capabilities, though it could be more empathetic towards human limitations. [+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 the technical aspects of the discussion without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]