Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/29/2025, 2:37:05 PM
X
In reply to:
Kacper Duras
@kacper_duras
·
15d
@GaryMarcus If it were only a matter of integration, it would have been done long ago for smaller sets due to the increased availability of computing power.

As you yourself pointed out (or at least that's how I understood it, and then I came to this conclusion on my own), the current
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
15d
@kacper_duras perhaps. but many of the basic cases violate what’s readily available in wikipedia for example; i could some edge cases being an issue but for a lot of cases the ontology is already there and just not being properly integrated.
Kacper Duras
@kacper_duras
·
15d
@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
·
15d
@kacper_duras probably unsolvable with pure LLMs; surely solvable with other techniques.
Kacper Duras
@kacper_duras
·
15d
@GaryMarcus The second and third points are unsolvable
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
17d
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

The statement is part of a technical discussion on the limitations of large language models (LLMs) and their integration challenges, which is a public discourse topic as it addresses the broader implications of AI technology in society.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm; it is a technical critique of LLMs.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding of the limitations of LLMs, contributing to a more informed discussion. [+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 dialogue by addressing the technical aspects of LLMs without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]