Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
6/27/2025, 3:14:04 PM
X
In reply to:
Greg ⏹️ Colbourn
@gcolbourn
·
228d
@GaryMarcus Is that "secret sauce" though? Or just further refinement and scaling? Doesn't really seem to me like there are any major breakthroughs needed.

Agree re alignment - and that's why we need to stop further development. But uncontrollable AGI seems all but inevitable if we don't.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
228d
@gcolbourn making the LLM use tools reliably is actually hard; making them following constraints (eg alingment) is damn hard. for many things the tools we might need don’t exist.

we have tons left to do.
Greg ⏹️ Colbourn
@gcolbourn
·
228d
@GaryMarcus So what secret sauce is left, given we have LLMs that can use standard (neurosymbolic) computing tools?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
228d
prediction: When AGI doesn’t arrive in 18 months, exactly zero people will admit they were wrong.
Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh
@S_OhEigeartaigh
·
228d
18 months until we learn if the Anthropic folks are high on their own supply, or whether the world is about to become very inexplicable for this jumped-up ape. Still leaning towards the former FWIW. But I'd sleep better if their prediction track record wasn't so good (esp Amodei)

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the development and implications of artificial general intelligence (AGI), which is a significant public issue. The tone is analytical and seeks to engage in further discussion about the topic.

  1. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement suggests a willingness to engage in further discussion, which can promote understanding and empathy by addressing 'huge holes' in the argument. This aligns with the principle of promoting understanding. [+1]
  2. 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 invites constructive dialogue by suggesting a discussion after a more detailed essay is published. This approach supports constructive criticism and dialogue, avoiding personal attacks. [+1]