Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 114
6/28/2025, 10:15:40 PM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
47d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka I agree that it’s fair for you to operationalize it yourself! It’d be good to do so clearly for your new set of predictions, with some edge cases clearly resolved, given the evident inability for many people to operationalize your predictions as you intend.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
47d
@justanotherlaw @ohabryka math is a lot better; coding might be. the general concerns i have raised have not been solved (legal moves in chess is another i have emphasized).

on some problems o1 was not better than 4o. on hallucinations o3 is worse than some predecessors.

it’s a mixed bag with some
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
47d
@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
·
47d
@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
·
47d
@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
·
47d
@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 conversation about AI predictions and their operationalization, which involves public discourse on AI development and its implications. The tone is inquisitive and seeks clarification, indicating a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue.

  1. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement seeks to promote understanding by addressing ambiguities and offering to clarify them, which aligns with the principle of promoting understanding, empathy, and compassion. [+1]
  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 engages in constructive dialogue by asking for clarification and offering to address ambiguities, avoiding personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]