Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 114
6/28/2025, 10:14:06 PM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
47d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka I’m aware! I think it’s quite unfair that people have reduced your overall attitude of LLMs to “haha boo LLMs”, and assume that any LM advance contradicts your beliefs. I’m just noting that this is indeed the impression that people get from your writing/interviews.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
47d
@justanotherlaw @ohabryka we can continue another time or another venue. but know that i often say stuff like this
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
239d
Total strawman.

I never said “AI is useless” (e.g., I love web search, GPS route planning, web search, recommendation engines and computational photography — and use all of those daily.)

I never even said LLMs are useless; I often say they are useful for brainstorming and
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
47d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka I’m sure you haven’t said that LLMs won’t be useful, literally! You’ve just repeatedly and insistently highlighted specific problems with every LM generation, most of which were improved upon by the next.

Again, I think there are good criticisms you make, eg that o3 is not “PhD
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
47d
@justanotherlaw @ohabryka do you know how many times i have said LLms have some used and that AGI ≠ useful?

done for today
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
47d
@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
·
47d
@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.

The statement engages in a discussion about the public perception of an individual's views on AI, specifically LLMs. It addresses the misinterpretation of the individual's stance and invites further dialogue to clarify these views. The tone is open and seeks to correct misunderstandings.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to clarify misconceptions, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm by addressing potential misunderstandings. [+1]
  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 by focusing on clarifying views rather than attacking individuals. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by inviting further discussion to clarify the individual's actual views. [+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 constructive dialogue by acknowledging the other party's sincere effort and inviting further conversation. [+1]