Gary Marcus

Rank 16 of 47

Score 76

@davidmanheim @mims @WSJ i have written to replies to replies in my substack. if after reading them you still think there is a substantive challenge that hasn’t been addressed, i would like to hear it. the biggest rejoinder was literally an error-filled joke, spread widely by people who wanted to believe

6/18/2025, 12:53:58 PM

In reply to:

David Manheim (is stuck in Athens)

@davidmanheim

@GaryMarcus @mims @WSJ I think that is correct, but vibe-research that misstates the conclusions or uses shoddy methods like this is bad, and should be called out as mistaken, and apologized for.
(And yes, this applies even more heavily to the AI safety and AI-acc crowd, where it's even more common!)

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

Why did the Apple reasoning research land so strongly?

Because people have started to feel it in their own experience with Generative AI.

My answer to @mims @wsj

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the validity of research methods and conclusions in AI studies. It invites further discussion and critique, indicating a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement aims to clarify misunderstandings and address errors, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
By inviting further discussion, it promotes understanding and empathy, though it could be more explicitly respectful. [+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 seeks constructive criticism and dialogue, avoiding personal attacks. [+1]