Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 115
6/29/2025, 1:31:22 AM
X
In reply to:
Steven Adler
@sjgadler
·
38d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka I really don’t think Oliver is a hater - IME he’s super high integrity, willing to admit when wrong, etc.

If he is a hater by your book, I fear you will have many more severe haters!
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
38d
@sjgadler @ohabryka it was definitely intended as being about LLMs.

but haters gonna hate.
Steven Adler
@sjgadler
·
38d
@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
·
38d
@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
·
38d
@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
·
38d
@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.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the future of AI technology, specifically regarding predictions about OpenAI and GPT-5. The tone is defensive, aiming to clarify a previous statement and address a perceived misinterpretation. The intent is to correct the record and engage in a discussion about AI predictions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm, but it does express frustration at being misinterpreted.
  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 attempts to engage in dialogue by clarifying a misunderstanding, but it also includes a defensive tone that could be seen as slightly confrontational. [-1]
  3. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement acknowledges a previous lack of specificity, which is a step towards correcting a mistake. [+1]