Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47

Score 84

@WesRothMoney or: the models on their own can’t reason. they need external tools, typically built with (often derided) classic symbolic techniques, in order to reason reliably.

huge vindication for those of favoring neurosymbolic approaches.

6/27/2025, 2:11:10 PM

In reply to:

Wes Roth

@WesRothMoney

227d

Pfizer researchers argue that what looks like a collapse in AI reasoning may actually be an agentic gap—models failing not in thought, but in action.

When given tools, the same models crushed tasks they had just failed.
The problem isn’t thinking—it’s interface.

A must-read

The statement engages in a technical discussion about AI reasoning and neurosymbolic approaches, responding to a conversation about AI models' reasoning capabilities and their reliance on external tools.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not cause harm and contributes to a technical discussion, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
It promotes understanding by discussing the role of neurosymbolic approaches in AI reasoning, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding. [+1]
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 constructively with the previous comment, providing an alternative perspective without personal attacks, aligning with the principle of constructive criticism. [+1]