Gary Marcus

Rank 18 of 47
|
Score 66
6/15/2025, 2:31:27 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
35d
@GaryMarcus @ChrisPainterYup I think the satire is about all that paper deserves, given the severe methodological issues that were found. Yes, there are clear deficits in reasoning, but the paper doesn't illustrate those issues, it tried to do something else, and failed.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
35d
@davidmanheim @ChrisPainterYup max dismissed the entire apple paper with a satire; nobody in the doomer community weighs failure modes in their timeline, at all.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
35d
@GaryMarcus @ChrisPainterYup I don't think I've dismissed failure modes; I agree with you that LLMs are pattern matching and sharply limited. I think we disagree when you say humans do something fundamentally different than iterated heuristic pattern matching + checking, and I'm unsure that's true.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
35d
@davidmanheim @ChrisPainterYup i don’t know what you are saying and i don’t at all see any evidence that doomers would take to mean that timelines are greater than two years.

any failure mode for example is simply dismissed.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
35d
@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
·
35d
@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.

The statement is part of a public discourse as it engages in a substantive discussion about the methodological issues in a paper related to AI and its implications, which are public concerns. The tone is inquisitive and seeks constructive feedback.

  1. 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 invites constructive criticism and dialogue by asking for specific feedback on what was missed or where the author went wrong, which aligns well with the principle of engaging in constructive criticism. [+2]
  2. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement shows a willingness to acknowledge and correct mistakes by asking for feedback on potential errors, which aligns well with the principle of acknowledging and correcting mistakes. [+2]