Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 95
6/17/2025, 10:24:54 PM
X
In reply to:
Simon Willison
@simonw
·
8h
@GaryMarcus ... added this to the footer of my post https://simonwillison.net/2025/J…
Simon Willison
@simonw
·
8h
@GaryMarcus I guess me saying "And therein lies my disagreement..." and then talking about how I don't care about AGI, I just care that they are useful could be seen as implying you were saying they *weren't* useful, I guess I could add a note about that
Simon Willison
@simonw
·
8h
@GaryMarcus I don't think I misrepresented you as suggesting there was zero utility in this piece - I called you a "notable LLM skeptic" https://simonwillison.net/2025/J…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
8h
@simonw to each his own.

but fact is that the 500B industry is largely predicated on promises from people like Sam that AGI is close.

and a lot of government policy is based thereon.

i have a right to be interested, and prefer that you not imply that i suggested there was zero
Simon Willison
@simonw
·
8h
@GaryMarcus Sure, absolutely - I tend to tune out anyone who starts talking about AGI myself, personally
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
8h
@simonw some strawman never die.

but the existence of some utility does not mean i can’t also address the rampant but misguided claims of imminent AGI.

The conversation involves a discussion about the utility of AI models and the claims of imminent AGI. It touches on public discourse as it addresses societal issues related to AI, industry promises, and government policy.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The conversation is generally respectful and does not appear to cause harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The exchange promotes understanding by clarifying positions and addressing potential misrepresentations. [+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 dialogue is constructive, with participants acknowledging different viewpoints and clarifying misunderstandings. [+1]