Gary Marcus

Rank 21 of 47
|
Score 52
6/28/2025, 9:08:03 PM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
53d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka Yes, I agree that under a careful narrow reading, you were correct. GPT-2 probably doesn’t have a world model by any reasonable use of the word, and GPT-3 fails basic physics questions without careful prompting. But under a more cursory reading, the claims that these failings
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
54d
@justanotherlaw @ohabryka rather, instead, i highlighted specific problems that have not in fact yet been solved.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
54d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka While I think your specific predictions have been above average, I do think people would’ve been quite wrong about how AI in 2025 was like if they internalized your general mood of “AI won’t work” in 2019-20. Oli is probably referring to that.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
54d
@justanotherlaw @ohabryka it was completely unfair, and his nitpicking exercise didn’t change that.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
54d
@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
·
54d
@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.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of AI capabilities and predictions, engaging in a debate about the accuracy and interpretation of AI development forecasts. The tone is defensive, aiming to clarify the speaker's position and address perceived misinterpretations of their work.

  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 could be seen as dismissive of others' interpretations.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others, as it does not engage in personal attacks or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it focuses more on defending the speaker's position rather than fostering dialogue. [-1]
  4. 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 dialogue but does not constructively address the disagreement, focusing instead on perceived misinterpretations without offering a path to resolution. [-1]