Gary Marcus

Rank 20 of 47
|
Score 52
6/28/2025, 8:13:03 PM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
55d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka (In large part because he doesn’t make specific, unambiguously resolvable forecasts, as this attempt to resolve his forecasts is clearly demonstrating.)
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).

The statement is part of a broader discussion on AI forecasting and the accuracy of predictions made by various individuals in the field. It addresses the issue of public expectations and criticisms related to AI developments, specifically GPT-5. The tone is defensive, suggesting frustration with ongoing criticism despite clear communication.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the defensive tone may not contribute positively to the discourse.
  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 does not engage in personal attacks but rather addresses a general frustration with the nature of public criticism. It could benefit from more constructive engagement with critics. [-1]