Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
6/27/2025, 4:24:45 PM
X
In reply to:
TJ Allard
@TjAllard
·
228d
@GaryMarcus Symbolic techniques, while promising, also face breakdowns…e.g., struggles with dynamic domains due to the frame problem. The real bottleneck lies in the ontology challenge: without solving data relationship inconsistencies across domains (an issue even DARPA’s DAML aims to
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
228d
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
·
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 engages in a technical discussion about AI reasoning, specifically advocating for neurosymbolic hybrid approaches over purely symbolic techniques. It contributes to public discourse on AI development and reasoning capabilities.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm and focuses on a technical argument. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by discussing the benefits of neurosymbolic approaches. [+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.
    Engages in constructive dialogue by responding to a critique of symbolic techniques. [+1]