Gary Marcus

Rank 10 of 47
|
Score 116
6/15/2025, 1:37:35 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
33d
@GaryMarcus @ChrisPainterYup I don't think that's true. I mean, to the extent that all predictions are unfalsifiable without waiting for them to occur, sure, but we're largely agreeing about what occurs short of that point - except you have been more skeptical of progress over the past couple years.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
33d
@davidmanheim @ChrisPainterYup i don’t think it is literally impossible but i think the theory is literally unfalsiifiable.

basically it says that any state of affairs might be an immediate prerequisite to AGI, and no state of affairs is any more plausible than any others as prerequisite.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
33d
@GaryMarcus @ChrisPainterYup If the model can actually learn as fast as a human, I would expect it to be running 24/7, massively in parallel, hence far faster than human speeds.
And I tried to explain the latter point below; we could have broad superintelligence with slower learning.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
33d
@GaryMarcus @ChrisPainterYup That is, it seems possible that "learning new things efficiently" is enough harder than "learning new things via large generated samples and iterated reasoning over sub-human capacities for image understanding" that the latter class of model bootstraps to superintelligence.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
33d
@davidmanheim @ChrisPainterYup 1. to clarify, that quote is from ryan not me.
2. weeks? seriously?
3. i don’t understand your last sentence, and wonder whether there is a typo.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
33d
@GaryMarcus @ChrisPainterYup I'd also love to hear a response on this; I don't understand the model where "can learn with sample efficiency and speed of 10 year old" is more than ~weeks before strongly superhuman AI, and it's entirely plausible it happens after hitting superhuman capabilities instead.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
33d
@ChrisPainterYup i just posed a lot of questions and nay respond further tomorrow

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the timelines and feasibility of achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI). It engages with public concerns about technological advancements and their implications, thus constituting public discourse. The tone is skeptical and dismissive of certain arguments presented in the conversation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but dismisses opposing views without providing evidence or constructive engagement, which could be seen as a minor violation of promoting understanding. [-1]
  2. 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 does not engage in personal attacks but dismisses opposing views without constructive dialogue, which is a minor violation of engaging in constructive criticism. [-1]