Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 76
6/29/2025, 2:30:29 PM
X
In reply to:
Kacper Duras
@kacper_duras
·
17d
@GaryMarcus I disagree. How could this *possibly* be solvable within the current paradigm of mathematics? In neurosymbolism you even have fundamental trade-offs, like with fuzzy logic, which OK, allows you to recognize uncertainty, but at the same time pushes the problem to a higher level
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
17d
@kacper_duras probably unsolvable with pure LLMs; surely solvable with other techniques.
Kacper Duras
@kacper_duras
·
17d
@GaryMarcus The second and third points are unsolvable
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
19d
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
·
493d
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 is part of a technical discussion about the limitations and potential solutions for AI models, specifically in the context of neurosymbolism and ontology integration. It critiques the current state of AI by suggesting that existing knowledge, such as that found on Wikipedia, is not being effectively utilized in AI systems.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and focuses on a technical critique, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by engaging in a technical discussion about AI limitations and potential solutions, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+1]
  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 engages in constructive criticism by addressing specific technical issues without resorting to personal attacks, adhering to the principle of constructive dialogue. [+1]