Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/23/2025, 3:41:55 AM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
17d
@GaryMarcus Of course, you might say that we weren't great at finding alternative directions; after all, none of the research programs yielded "tractable, transparent" alternatives. I'd reply that it'd be more productive to suggest particular approaches you want think people missed.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
17d
@GaryMarcus Also, a lot of the efforts were done earlier on, when the community was way smaller; my guess is ~25% of total effort by AIS people in 2018 went into non-"scale the deep learning models and add some RL" approaches
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
17d
@GaryMarcus And of course there's the mech interp phase of 2022-3, where maybe 50% of the incoming AIS talent went into trying to "fully reverse engineer" algorithms by looking at neural networks.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
17d
@GaryMarcus I disagree that <=0.01% of the historical effort or $ of the AIS community has gone into this -- I don't know how large you think the AIS community is, but my guess is there are still <5k FTE right now, the vast majority in the last 5 years. Let's say 30k person-years to be safe.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
17d
@GaryMarcus I agree that the world as a whole is currently underallocating resources into seriously investigating alternative approaches. As you say, this is a commons problem. I also agree that the world's handling AI development is grossly negligent at best.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
17d
@justanotherlaw i think at most about .01% of the effort and $ has been expended looking at alternatives, if that.

if you believe that the possible consequence of betting on the wrong horse is catastrophe that kind of underallocation / premature closure is certifiably insane, especially given

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the allocation of resources in AI research, specifically focusing on the need for exploring alternative approaches like neurosymbolic AI. It engages with public issues related to AI development and resource allocation, contributing to civic dialogue on technological advancement and its implications.

  1. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by referencing a previously written article that presumably elaborates on the reasons for advocating neurosymbolic AI, fostering informed discussion. [+1]
  2. 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 responding to a previous comment and suggesting a specific approach (neurosymbolic AI) without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]
  3. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    By advocating for a particular approach in AI that could potentially address current shortcomings, the statement uses influence for societal betterment. [+1]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech principles by responsibly contributing to a public debate on AI research directions. [+1]