Gary Marcus

Rank 24 of 47
|
Score 31
6/28/2025, 9:46:21 PM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
50d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka Yeah, I think this is a general problem. My guess is I’ll probably agree with your claim assuming under your definition but dispute the takeaway that there hasn’t been a massive advance in AI capabilities in relevant areas. Let me read it to be sure.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
50d
@justanotherlaw @ohabryka the o3 they showed in the video was probably a staged demo announced before it was a real product

even after they did more work it didn’t actually seem to do some of the things they promised.

so i see your point but also know that a lot of demos aren’t real or have problems
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
50d
@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
·
50d
@justanotherlaw @ohabryka so now my prediction was about threat models for catastrophic risk even though i never said such a thing?
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
50d
@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
·
50d
@ohabryka @justanotherlaw it wasn’t available to any independent scientists

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the advancements and limitations of AI models, specifically focusing on the performance and reliability of certain versions. The tone is analytical and critical, aiming to address concerns about the effectiveness of AI models in specific areas like math, coding, and chess. The intent is to contribute to the discourse on AI capabilities and their implications.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and focuses on technical critique, adhering to the principle of doing no harm with words. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding by discussing specific issues with AI models, though it could be more empathetic by acknowledging the efforts of developers. [+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 specific concerns about AI models without resorting to personal attacks. [+2]