Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47

Score 84

Reposted by Gary Marcus

Update 2: Looking more carefully at this paper, I think the gist of what it says is correct -- LLMS are prone to various inconsistencies -- but the actual experimental materials here aren't compelling. Having seen examples like this before in my own informal experiments

6/27/2025, 8:49:27 PM

The statement engages in a critical analysis of a paper discussing the limitations of large language models (LLMs), specifically their inconsistencies. The author acknowledges the paper's main point but critiques the experimental materials, suggesting they are not compelling. This reflects an intent to engage in constructive criticism and contribute to the discourse on AI capabilities.

Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by acknowledging the paper's main point about LLM inconsistencies. [+1]
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 pointing out weaknesses in the experimental materials without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]
Principle 5:
I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
The statement implicitly acknowledges the potential for error in the paper's experimental approach, aligning with the principle of acknowledging and correcting mistakes. [+1]