Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 114
6/29/2025, 1:25:45 AM
X
In reply to:
Holly ⏸️ Elmore
@ilex_ulmus
·
39d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka Oli’s main play is specific demands for rigor and charity. You won’t get him to budge.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
39d
@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
Oliver Habryka
@ohabryka
·
39d
@GaryMarcus Ok, on your request, let me go through and evaluate your 2024 predictions myself.

I think the best way to evaluate them is to invert every one of them, and then see whether the version you wrote, or the inverted version seems more correct in-retrospect.

*We will see 7-10
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
40d
Nine June 2029 AI predictions — from someone who was basically 7/7 on 2024:

1. The LLM race will be basically a tie between China and U.S.

2. Pure LLMs will still hallucinate (alternative architectures may do better).

3. Pure LLMs will still make stupid errors (alternative
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
514d
Prediction: By end of 2024 we will see
• 7-10 GPT-4 level models
• No massive advance (no GPT-5, or disappointing GPT-5)
• Price wars
• Very little moat for anyone
• No robust solution to hallucinations
• Modest lasting corporate adoption
• Modest profits, split 7-10 ways

The statement 'i saw what he was made of' is a brief and somewhat ambiguous comment in a larger conversation about AI predictions and the evaluation of those predictions. It does not directly engage with the substantive issues being discussed, such as the accuracy of AI predictions or the methodologies used to evaluate them. Instead, it appears to be a personal observation or judgment about an individual involved in the conversation, without providing further context or analysis.

  1. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement could be seen as indirectly questioning the character or capabilities of an individual without providing substantive evidence or context, which may not fully respect the dignity of others. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue about the topic at hand, and instead makes a personal observation that could be interpreted as a personal attack. [-1]