Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 114
6/28/2025, 10:14:18 PM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
47d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka (I again put substantial blame on Twitter for this.)
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
·
238d
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

The statement 'not wrong' is a brief agreement with a previous comment about the perception of someone's views on LLMs. The conversation involves a discussion on the utility and perception of AI, particularly LLMs, and critiques of public statements. The tone is supportive and aligns with the ongoing dialogue about AI's capabilities and public perception.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm and supports a constructive dialogue. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by acknowledging a valid point in the discussion. [+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.
    Engages in constructive dialogue by agreeing with a point without personal attacks. [+1]