Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 114
Oliver Habryka
@ohabryka
·
35d
@GaryMarcus I… do not believe you have anything close to a 7/7 prediction track record for AI prediction in 2024. Indeed your predictions have so far struck me as exceptionally bad compared to most people trying to forecast AI.
6/29/2025, 1:36:26 AM
X
In reply to:
Steven Adler
@sjgadler
·
35d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka Could you give me the benefit of the doubt and share what you felt was Oliver ‘basically saying you were an idiot’? I’m very surprised by that
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
35d
@sjgadler @ohabryka it was an extremely uncharitable put words in my mouth missing the forest for the trees take. i was taken aback.

the forest is that at time when practically everyone thought openai was going imminently to rule the world with GPT-5, i said they would not get there in 2024, that
Steven Adler
@sjgadler
·
35d
@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
·
35d
@sjgadler @ohabryka it was definitely intended as being about LLMs.

but haters gonna hate.
Steven Adler
@sjgadler
·
35d
@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
·
35d
@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.

The statement is part of a broader discussion on AI predictions and the profitability of AI companies, which constitutes public discourse as it engages with public issues related to technology and its impact on society.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement 'exceptionally bad' is a direct critique of someone's predictions, which could be seen as harsh but not necessarily harmful. It does not appear to cause harm beyond expressing a strong opinion.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. It is a critique of professional work rather than a personal attack.
  3. 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 is part of a dialogue that includes disagreement. While it is critical, it does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, focusing instead on the quality of predictions.