Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 115
6/29/2025, 1:33:02 AM
X
In reply to:
Steven Adler
@sjgadler
·
37d
@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
·
37d
@sjgadler @ohabryka it was definitely intended as being about LLMs.

but haters gonna hate.
Steven Adler
@sjgadler
·
37d
@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
·
37d
@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
·
37d
@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 broader discussion about AI technologies, specifically LLMs (Large Language Models), and their profitability and characterization. The tone is somewhat defensive and comparative, suggesting a disagreement with how a previous statement was characterized. The intent seems to be to clarify or defend a position in the context of a debate about AI technologies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the comparative nature ('miles brundage, he ain’t') could be seen as dismissive or undermining, which might indirectly cause harm by affecting reputations. [-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 a form of personal comparison, which could be seen as a mild personal attack rather than constructive criticism. It does not engage directly with the arguments but rather with the characterization of individuals. [-1]