Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/15/2025, 6:27:52 AM
X
In reply to:
Will
@Will83756176
·
25d
@GaryMarcus I'm pretty sure that chess computers beat people at chess
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
25d
@Will83756176 makes illegal moves, so same story
Will
@Will83756176
·
25d
@GaryMarcus Chess?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
25d
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
·
25d
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 conversation revolves around the capabilities and limitations of AI, particularly in generating outputs that appear correct but may contain subtle errors. The statement 'not LLMs' suggests a distinction between chess computers and language models, implying that while chess computers excel, language models often fail in accuracy. This contributes to the public discourse on AI's reliability and application in different domains.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is part of a broader discussion on AI capabilities. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by distinguishing between different types of AI and their effectiveness. [+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.
    Engages in constructive dialogue by addressing a specific point in the conversation without personal attacks. [+1]