Gary Marcus

Rank 17 of 47

|

Score 73

+3

@IAmTimNguyen no, i am just clarifying what i said.

there is no current solution.

anything else is speculative

since i pointed out related problems in 2001, and have seen no principled solution, i am not optimistic about having robust solutions in 2026. eventually one may come, but i think

6/16/2025, 5:30:59 PM

In reply to:

Timothy Nguyen

@IAmTimNguyen

·

72d

@GaryMarcus "No solution to this problem" is quite unfair as it is the opposite to what Terry says. "we will see where things go" is quite the about-face Gary!

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

·

72d

@IAmTimNguyen it is a report of where AI is now, and it is fair.

we will see where things go.

Timothy Nguyen

@IAmTimNguyen

·

72d

@GaryMarcus This is unfair. Terry Tao has suggestions and a vision for how AIs can be used successfully, which he even eludes to this in the very same video clip. Elsewhere, Terry writes:

"I expect, say, 2026-level AI, when used properly, will be a trustworthy co-author in mathematical

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

·

73d

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

·

73d

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 engages in a discussion about the current state and future of AI, particularly in relation to its limitations and potential solutions. The tone is analytical and somewhat skeptical, focusing on the lack of a principled solution to AI's problems despite past discussions.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not cause harm and is focused on clarifying a position regarding AI's limitations. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by clarifying the speaker's perspective on the issue. [+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 engages in constructive dialogue by addressing previous comments and providing a reasoned perspective. [+1]