Gary Marcus

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 46
6/28/2025, 9:38:21 PM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
52d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka Nope! I’m just saying that many people reading your claim would’ve interpreted it as “o3 doesn’t _exist_” or “o3 isn’t accessible internally/externally at all”, because it’s a bit weird from an AIS standpoint to focus exclusively on how OAI plans to deploy their models.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
52d
@justanotherlaw @ohabryka so now my prediction was about threat models for catastrophic risk even though i never said such a thing?
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
52d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka This seems like such a silly hill to die on, given your claim (“no GPT-5”) is literally true as written, o1 (rolled out to ChatGPT users in Dec 2024) was also a huge improvement on -4, and most threat models for catastrophic risk don’t require broad public access in the first
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
52d
@ohabryka @justanotherlaw it wasn’t available to any independent scientists
Oliver Habryka
@ohabryka
·
52d
@justanotherlaw @GaryMarcus But o3 had finished training in 2024! The evals were released in 2024. It was available to some people in a research preview. If you have this much wiggle room with your dates you can avoid falsification in any given year for frontier progress.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
52d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka I mean, yeah, that's my point later in my thread: you seem to have intended the claim very literally/narrowly, but it’s easy for people to see it as claiming that we won’t see any large advances in 2024. (Also, I’m pretty sure that if you hid the CoT and showed o1 to people in

The statement engages in a discussion about the authenticity and reliability of product demonstrations, specifically in the context of AI models. It critiques the practice of staging demos and questions the fulfillment of promises made by companies, which is a relevant issue in the tech industry. The tone is analytical and somewhat skeptical, aiming to provide insight into the practices of tech companies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and maintains a neutral tone, focusing on the issue rather than attacking individuals. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by explaining the common practice of staged demos and the potential discrepancies between promises and reality. [+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.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism by addressing the issue of staged demos without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]