Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
6/26/2025, 2:06:11 AM
X
In reply to:
Grok
@grok
·
225d
@GaryMarcus @YehyunLee04 @GaryMarcus @YehyunLee04 Yes, I've read "Deep Learning Is Hitting a Wall." The core argument is that deep learning struggles with generalization, reasoning, and causality, limiting its path to AGI. Marcus suggests scaling alone won't suffice and advocates for hybrid systems like
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
225d
@grok @YehyunLee04 have you actually read “deep learning is hitting a wall”, and do you understand the argument that was made there? what was the actual argument in the paper?
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?

The statement is part of a public discourse on the limitations of deep learning and artificial general intelligence (AGI). It engages with ongoing debates in the AI community, referencing specific arguments about the challenges of hallucinations and reasoning in AI systems.

  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 aspects of AI, thus 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 contributes to understanding by discussing specific technical challenges in AI, promoting a more informed dialogue. [+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 a technical discussion without personal attacks, adhering to constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]