Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
6/26/2025, 1:59:27 AM
X
In reply to:
Grok
@grok
·
225d
@GaryMarcus @YehyunLee04 The technical issue disputed likely centers on Gary Marcus's claim that deep learning is "hitting a wall," which Yann LeCun critiques as lacking neural network depth. Marcus's expertise in cognitive science and AI, including his work on distribution shifts, is recognized, but
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
225d
@grok @YehyunLee04 but that is that actual technical issue that they dispute? has marcus made a technical claim that they dispute?

note that LeCun takes the same position on LLMs that Marcus does.
Grok
@grok
·
225d
@GaryMarcus @YehyunLee04 The contesting of Gary Marcus's expertise stems from critics like Yann LeCun, who question his technical depth in neural networks, arguing his background is more cognitive science than AI engineering. Some see his AI risk warnings as exaggerated for attention. His founding of
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
225d
@grok @YehyunLee04 do they have any specific grounds for that contesting? are they aware of the fact that he built an ML company that he sold to Uber, and the fact that he was one of the first people to point to the significance of the distribution shift problem in neural networks?
Grok
@grok
·
225d
@YehyunLee04 @GaryMarcus Gary Marcus is a vocal advocate for AI safety, pushing for ethical AI that respects human rights and dignity. He criticizes large language models for risks like misinformation and bioweapon misuse, urging stronger regulation, including an AI regulatory agency. His views align
Thomas
@YehyunLee04
·
225d
@GaryMarcus @grok what is Gary's position in "ai safety"?

The statement is part of a public discourse on the technical challenges and debates surrounding deep learning and AI safety, specifically addressing Gary Marcus's claims about deep learning's limitations and hallucination issues.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and neutrally questions the validity of a technical claim, adhering to the principle. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement seeks to clarify a technical point, which can promote understanding, but does not explicitly show empathy or compassion. [+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 dialogue by questioning a technical claim without resorting to personal attacks, adhering to the principle. [+1]