Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 114
6/29/2025, 1:25:17 AM
X
In reply to:
Steven Adler
@sjgadler
·
41d
@ohabryka @GaryMarcus I guess I’m just saying that I understand Gary’s prediction as being about LLMs, rather than something like NVIDIA. Whether that distinction makes sense, whether the prediction is true, etc, are all outside what I’m trying to suggest
Oliver Habryka
@ohabryka
·
41d
@sjgadler @GaryMarcus If the technology is highly profitable, but an earlier step in the supply chain is absorbing a lot of the profit, it seems disingenuous to say that AI companies in general are profitable. You can always find some step in the supply chain that isn't making all the profit.
Steven Adler
@sjgadler
·
42d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka FWIW, I parse Gary’s prediction as being about AI providers / model trainers, not hardware. Seems like that’s the consistent referent of the predictions (are LLMs adopted, are 7-10 GPT-ish LLMs available)
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
42d
@ohabryka on nvidia closest i can immediately find was a bit later, quite explicitly saying they are different animal. my focus throughout has been on LLMs and software rather than chips, but it’s true i wasn’t specific enough.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
362d
Theranos likely permanently poisoned the well for legit companies trying to innovate in blood tests.

All the overhype in GenAI threatens to do the same for AI.

NVidia will continue to make money on chips, but for many others this may turn out to be a bloodbath.
Oliver Habryka
@ohabryka
·
42d
@GaryMarcus > in which I expect many insults thrown at me

> biased and redolent of motivated reasoning.

Come on, I tried. Please at least try to approach some better ratio of insults to content.

I tried to evaluate the predictions as written. If you intended to exclude Nvidia, then I
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
42d
@ohabryka This in an incredibly uncharitable read, biased and redolent of motivated reasoning.

If you applied the same to almost any other set of predictions I think you could nitpick those too. It also lacks context (e.g yes 7-10 was an underestimate, but at time when there were like

The statement is a dismissive response to criticism, suggesting that detractors are simply 'haters.' It lacks engagement with the substance of the discussion about LLMs and profitability in the AI industry.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm, as it dismisses criticism without addressing it constructively. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It does not respect the dignity of others by labeling them as 'haters,' which could be seen as dismissive or derogatory. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it fails to engage with the content of the discussion. [-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.
    It does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, instead opting for a dismissive tone. [-1]