Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
7/1/2025, 7:13:25 PM
X
In reply to:
Ed Newton-Rex
@ednewtonrex
·
11d
@MrEwanMorrison @GaryMarcus Again, I think you're mistaken, and I don't see any evidence for what you're suggesting (and lots of evidence to the contrary, e.g. all their new team members' track records, as Gary points out) - but we'll see soon enough from what they release
Ewan Morrison
@MrEwanMorrison
·
11d
@GaryMarcus @ednewtonrex Pivot!
This is just part of their PR.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
11d
@ednewtonrex @MrEwanMorrison fwiw almost everyone they hired seems to have worked recently on LLMs (and “reasoning”)
Ed Newton-Rex
@ednewtonrex
·
11d
@MrEwanMorrison @GaryMarcus I think you’re mistaken about this - superintelligence team will be working on LLMs
Ewan Morrison
@MrEwanMorrison
·
11d
@GaryMarcus LeCun spoke the truth at Meta about LLMs not being a pathway to AGI. Meta Corp has now woken up to this fact, but they have to shoot the messenger, or hide him away, so as not to cause market panic.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
11d
Meta just re-orged their AI, now apparently all under Alexandr Wang — is LeCun just a wall decoration at this point?

Memo from Zuck (not LeCun), w no mention of LeCun:

The statement expresses skepticism about the genuine innovation behind Meta's AI developments, suggesting it's more of a marketing strategy than a breakthrough. The tone is critical and somewhat dismissive, focusing on the perceived hype around 'superintelligence.'

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm but could be seen as dismissive of the efforts of those involved, potentially undermining their work. [-1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks empathy and understanding, focusing on criticism without acknowledging potential positive aspects. [-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 criticism but lacks constructive dialogue, focusing instead on skepticism and dismissal. [-1]