Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/15/2025, 6:19:13 AM
X
In reply to:
Alessandro Della Corte
@Ognifedefingo
·
24d
@GaryMarcus “GPT is so good in hundreds of fields, why it happens to be so sloppy just in my expertise field??”
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
24d
Terence Tao reporting on the same problem we have seen endlessly in other domains: LLM’s produce output that “looks” correct but is often deeply wrong and even stupid on careful inspection.

I know of no domain in which this is NOT the case.

And yet people seem surprised over
vitrupo
@vitrupo
·
24d
Terence Tao says today's AIs pass the eye test -- but fail miserably on the smell test.

They generate proofs that look flawless. But the mistakes are subtle, and strangely inhuman.

“There's a metaphorical mathematical smell.. it's not clear how to get AI to duplicate that.”

The statement by @Ognifedefingo is a sarcastic response to a discussion about the limitations of AI, particularly in generating accurate outputs in specific fields. The conversation critiques AI's ability to produce seemingly correct but flawed results, highlighting a common issue across domains. The tone is lighthearted and somewhat dismissive, suggesting skepticism about AI's capabilities in certain areas.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm but uses sarcasm to critique AI's limitations.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy but rather highlights skepticism. [-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 a form of constructive criticism through sarcasm, without personal attacks. [+1]