Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/23/2025, 4:21:14 AM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
15d
@GaryMarcus Yep, I agree that there have not been any stellar, compelling results, in large part because of the focus on incremental progress with current systems.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
15d
@justanotherlaw great. now it is less than 1%, and the 99% are focusing on hasn’t yielded any stellar, compelling results.

that should be a huge sign.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
15d
@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
·
15d
@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
·
15d
@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
·
15d
@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.

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the allocation of resources and focus within the AI research community, particularly regarding the effectiveness of current approaches versus alternative methods. It critiques the community's current direction and suggests a misalignment in priorities.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and maintains a respectful tone, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by engaging in a discussion about the direction of AI research, encouraging reflection on current practices. [+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 questioning the community's 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 highlight potential missteps in AI research priorities, aiming for the betterment of the field. [+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 responsibly discussing public concerns in AI research. [+1]