Gary Marcus

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 46
6/28/2025, 9:41:04 PM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
52d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka You’re also ignoring the previous two points I made, including the one where I concede that you’re technically correct. I suspect this is due to twitter, and it’ll be more productive to have this convo via long form writeups or offline in person.
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 is part of a broader conversation about the development and availability of AI models, which is a public issue related to technology and its societal implications. The tone of the statement suggests a potential misunderstanding or loss of focus in the ongoing discussion.

  1. 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, but it does not detract from these values either. It is neutral in this regard.
  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 or ad hominem arguments. It acknowledges a potential loss of focus, which could be seen as an attempt to clarify the discussion. [+1]