Gary Marcus

Rank 18 of 47

Score 61

@ProfArbel - am happy negotiate terms if he expresses interest (and open to suggestions)

- agree humans will be in loop for most/all near-term discoveries

– his claim is actually much stronger than “there will be at least one Nobel-level discovery by 2027”, at least as I read it.

6/30/2025, 3:52:23 PM

In reply to:

Yonathan Arbel

@ProfArbel

i applaud Gary for betting, but smarter is not easily resolvable. i do see the case for a Nobel-worthy llm discovery or invention, but (a) we will say it was obvious/mechanical application of ideas in hindsight and (b) humans will probably be somewhere in the loop

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

🎺 I am hereby publicly offering to bet @darioamodei $1,000,000 that AI in 2027 will NOT be “smarter than Nobel Prize winners across most fields in science and engineering”. 🎺

Why? We are nowhere close. Consider:

• New Stanford study from @ChengleiSi shows that “LLM ideas

The statement engages in a discussion about the future capabilities of AI compared to human intelligence, specifically Nobel Prize winners. It reflects on the potential for AI to achieve significant discoveries and the role of humans in these processes.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not cause harm and is part of a speculative discussion about AI's future capabilities. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by engaging in a dialogue about AI's potential and limitations. [+1]
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, offering a perspective on AI's future without personal attacks. [+1]