Gary Marcus

Rank 10 of 47

Score 114

supplement: here’s what i *actually* said 2.5 years ago, as opposed to the strawmen above. it’s not that it was hard to follow, it’s that the propagandists attacking me didn’t care to, because it would undermine their narrative.

we see this in politics all the time

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

30d

For those alleging I am often wrong, here’s what I actually predicted (December, 2022). Bang on, whether you like it or not.

Two and a half years later: Still no GPT-5. And not one of the problems I pointed has been solved in a stable, enduring, principled way.

6/16/2025, 10:09:41 PM

In reply to:

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

32d

people lie about me and distort my views all the time. this is a good example.

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. I

VraserX e/acc

@VraserX

32d

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 addresses the issue of misrepresentation in public discourse, particularly in the context of AI predictions. It suggests that the speaker's views have been distorted by others to fit a particular narrative, a common occurrence in political and public debates.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement attempts to clarify previous comments and correct misrepresentations, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm with words. [+1]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
It accuses others of propagandist behavior, which could be seen as disrespectful, but it does not engage in direct personal attacks. [-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 a form of constructive criticism by addressing the misrepresentation, though it could be more diplomatic.