Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/23/2025, 3:42:51 AM
X
In reply to:
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
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
17d
@GaryMarcus The problem with "make a new AI paradigm" is not a lack of desire. Many AI academics want this, especially those from an older time when making new insights about intelligence was key to AI progress.

The problem with making a new paradigm is that it turned out to be too hard.

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the allocation of resources and efforts within the AI research community, particularly focusing on alternative approaches to AI development. It critiques the current focus and suggests that the lack of compelling results from the majority approach should be a warning sign.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but implies criticism of current efforts, which is a part of healthy discourse.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement indirectly promotes understanding by highlighting the need to reassess current efforts in AI research. [+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 statement engages in constructive criticism by pointing out the lack of results from the current focus, without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]
  4. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to suggest a reevaluation of priorities in AI research, aiming for better outcomes. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech by contributing to a critical discussion on AI research priorities. [+1]