Gary Marcus

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 34
6/28/2025, 9:49:37 PM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
49d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka This is the sense in which I think your predictions are technically correct, but are missing a mood.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
49d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka My point is “solving one of the major problems” doesn’t seem to be necessary for a model to be very useful to many people. If the takeaway from “AI hasn’t solved your major problems” is “AI can’t do things IRL”, then that takeaway is incorrect. If it’s the narrower point, I
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
49d
@justanotherlaw @ohabryka and it still hallucinates, more than some predecessors, has trouble with complex reasoning that it’s not trained on etc. for me a major advance would have to solve at least one of the major problems i have emphasized for years, and i don’t see that it does.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
49d
@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
·
49d
@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
·
49d
@justanotherlaw @ohabryka so now my prediction was about threat models for catastrophic risk even though i never said such a thing?

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the potential dangers and limitations of AI models, which is a significant public issue. The tone is inquisitive and possibly critical, questioning the frequency of warnings about AI dangers. The intent seems to be to highlight or question the emphasis on the risks associated with AI models.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but questions the frequency of warnings, which could be seen as undermining the seriousness of the issue. However, it does not explicitly violate the principle.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on questioning the emphasis on AI dangers rather than fostering a deeper understanding of the issue. [-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 dialogue by questioning the frequency of warnings, but it does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. It maintains a level of constructive criticism by questioning the narrative rather than individuals. [+1]