Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/23/2025, 5:04:57 AM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
15d
@GaryMarcus @DKokotajlo @ohabryka 2. People had lots of big brain theories about why deep learning wouldn't do X, and most of them were proven wrong.* So surely deep learning can do alignment, right?
Even less charitably, because a bunch of conceptual arguments against deep learning were wrong, the field of AI
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
15d
@GaryMarcus @DKokotajlo @ohabryka 1. The default personas* of some of the LLMs seem so friendly when you talk to them!
The sillier version of this is people talking to o3, hearing reassuring words like "I would never act in ways I know you didn't intend", and assuming that this means the LLM will be "aligned"
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
15d
@GaryMarcus @DKokotajlo @ohabryka But to be more charitable, I've heard people make the following arguments:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
15d
@GaryMarcus @DKokotajlo Uncharitably, I think they're not thinking very clearly. @ohabryka would say that they're being corrupted by the massive financial incentives involved in AI development, plus the social incentives of "don't be a doomer".
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
15d
@justanotherlaw @DKokotajlo what on earth is the argument of the other 75-99%?

i honestly don’t see any compelling argument that the current approach is working.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
15d
@GaryMarcus @DKokotajlo I do want to point out that more than 1% of the AIS community does agree with you that current business-as-usual alignment does not seem to be working. Maybe 25% if I had to guess.

The statement critiques the capabilities of deep learning models, particularly in the context of playing chess and following constraints, as part of a broader discussion on AI alignment and capabilities. It engages with public discourse on AI technology and its limitations.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and focuses on technical critique, adhering to 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 aims to promote understanding of the limitations of AI models, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+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 of AI capabilities without personal attacks, adhering to the principle of constructive dialogue. [+1]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement contributes to the discourse on AI responsibly, upholding the principle of responsible use of free speech. [+1]