Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
6/27/2025, 2:35:51 PM
X
In reply to:
Persona non-starter
@mralmolololl
·
227d
@GaryMarcus Presumably, then, it must also be a huge vindication of the AI labs building LLMs with tool use?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
227d
new result (when correctly interpreted): LLMs 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 long favoring neurosymbolic approaches.
Wes Roth
@WesRothMoney
·
228d
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 discussion on AI reasoning and tool use, engaging with the topic of neurosymbolic approaches in AI. It suggests a conditional agreement with the idea that AI labs building LLMs with tool use could be vindicated if they can make it work effectively.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is neutral in tone.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by engaging in a technical discussion about AI reasoning and tool use. [+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 constructively with the previous comments, adding to the dialogue without personal attacks. [+1]