Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 114
6/15/2025, 3:36:37 PM
X
In reply to:
Laurence Molloy
@MolloyLaurence
·
55d
@VraserX @GaryMarcus @shaunralston This is a shameful attempt at straw-manning

I can occasionally be sceptical of Mr Marcus' views but I understand and respect them as someone who has worked in this space in the past

You need to be more sceptical of those who have something to sell to keep investors on-side
VraserX e/acc
@VraserX
·
55d
@GaryMarcus @shaunralston Gary, with all due respect, your track record speaks for itself. You keep saying “progress has stalled” while every new model steamrolls your predictions.

– o3 and o4-mini-high have slashed error rates and run faster and cheaper than earlier GPT-4 systems.
– GPT-4o reasons live
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
55d
@VraserX @shaunralston This is dishonest, full of distortions and incorrect.
1. i predicted specifically that pretraining scaling would run out and that we would need new innovations. it did and we have and still do.
2. i didn’t say gpt-4 was the end; i said it would be hard to get to GPT-5 and take
VraserX e/acc
@VraserX
·
55d
Gary Marcus has spent the last 5 years confidently predicting things that aged worse than milk in the sun.
🧢 “Scaling laws don’t work”
🧢 “GPT-4 is the end”
🧢 “Deep learning hit a wall”
🧢 “LLMs will never understand meaning”

Meanwhile, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI and

The statement 'Shameful is a good word for it' is a response to a discussion about AI predictions and criticisms. The tone is dismissive and aligns with a previous comment criticizing a perceived straw-man argument. The conversation involves public figures discussing AI development, making it part of public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not promote harm directly but contributes to a dismissive tone, which can be seen as unconstructive. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not respect the dignity of others, as it dismisses the argument without engaging with it constructively. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it simply labels the argument as 'shameful' without further explanation. [-1]