Gary Marcus

Rank 18 of 47
|
Score 61
6/28/2025, 8:06:49 PM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
55d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka I do think it’s quite unfair to say that Gary is “exceptionally bad”! He’s doing better than the horde of people who confidently asserted that AIs wouldn’t be able do particular things that they did.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
55d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka Paul was pretty correct about “prosaic” AI alignment (where you assume there are no fundamental changes from the deep learning paradigm) being the thing to work on back in 2015-6, while most of the AI(S) community was on the “deep learning won’t work” train.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
55d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka Eli Lifland is also pretty good in prediction tournaments, and Daniel Kokotajlo’s AI 2026 forecasts have held up pretty well:
https://www.alignmentforum.org/p…
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
55d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka Tamay and Ege are also pretty good forecasters by the tournaments iirc, but they’re on the list because Epoch’s “straight lines on graphs” approach to AI capability forecasting seems to have held up pretty well.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
55d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka My guess is Oli listed them because, had you listened to their high level point in ~2010 (or in Demis’s case, joined his startup), you would’ve started working on AI Safety far before the curve (probably be rich and famous).
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
55d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka Eliezer is famously bad at generating legible resolvable forecasts — we’d have to go through and repeat the process Oli did before, where we score each of them manually. I don’t have a list of these forecasts on hand, @ohabryka do you know of any?

The statement is part of a broader discussion on AI alignment and forecasting, which are public issues related to technology and its societal impact. The tone of the statement is critical, suggesting that a previous assessment was unfair and that nitpicking did not alter this perception.

  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 criticism but does not provide constructive feedback or engage in dialogue. It dismisses the previous point as 'nitpicking' without addressing the substance of the argument, which could be seen as a minor violation of engaging in constructive criticism. [-1]