Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
6/27/2025, 2:24:50 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
226d
@GaryMarcus @WesRothMoney I don't understand why this favors neurosymbolic approaches.
I would argue that it is showing that those approaches are unnecessary because the non-neurosymbolic (but symbolic) tools can be used by non-neurosymbolic agent-based systems.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
226d
@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.
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 is part of a technical discussion on AI models and neurosymbolic approaches. It asserts that combining LLMs with symbolic tools supports the speaker's long-held view on the necessity of integrating symbols and neural networks.

  1. 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 debate. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by engaging in a discussion about AI methodologies. [+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 responding to differing opinions without personal attacks. [+1]