Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
6/27/2025, 4:07:47 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
228d
@GaryMarcus @WesRothMoney I have claimed it was plausible that LLMs would develop that symbolic understanding without the tools, and this is slight further evidence in your direction, but either way it's not a crux on whether we need to focus on safety, and ensure we do not build dangerous AI.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
228d
@davidmanheim @WesRothMoney if you use an LLM plus
symbolic tools that vindicates all the arguments i have been making for 30 years that symbols and neural nets both need to be in the loop.

period.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
228d
@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
·
228d
@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
·
229d
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 the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) and their need for symbolic understanding and tools to ensure safety. It argues for the necessity of symbols in AI systems to achieve safety, countering the idea that LLMs can develop symbolic understanding independently.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and focuses on a technical argument about AI safety. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by engaging in a detailed discussion about the role of symbols in AI. [+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 criticism by addressing differing viewpoints on AI development. [+1]