Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 83
6/25/2025, 3:36:50 PM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
222d
@GaryMarcus My theory for why o3/4o can do it but Gemini + Imagen cannot is because Imagen 4 and Gemini are separate models -- Gemini understands compositionality but can only access Imagen via a function call API, and thus cannot pass its understanding to Imagen 4 via a prompt.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
222d
@GaryMarcus When I ask Gemini about the horse/astronaut image with the request in context, it seems to double down that it followed instructions correctly, even though when I ask about the image in a new chat it correct identifies the problem.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
222d
@GaryMarcus I think this is evidence that the Gemini + Imagen 4 combo isn't great at following instructions for some reason. (In the same way that Grok 3 image generation failures are more a sign that Grok 3 wasn't as great as people were hyping it out to be.)
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
222d
@GaryMarcus First try with o3:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
222d
“A horse rides an astronaut”, three years later.

Y’all owe me an apology.

The statement critiques ChatGPT's performance in generating an image based on specific instructions. It highlights a perceived failure in the AI's ability to follow complex prompts accurately. The tone is critical but not hostile, focusing on the technical limitations of the AI model.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm; it is a critique of AI performance.
  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 criticism without personal attacks. [+1]