Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 94
7/20/2025, 3:30:44 AM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
73d
@liron barely over zero for either IMHO
Liron Shapira
@liron
·
73d
@GaryMarcus I think it’s 49% likely in 2 years (vs. your ~10%), 60% likely in 3 years.
Liron Shapira
@liron
·
73d
@GaryMarcus Great answer, thanks for putting your stake in the ground
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
73d
@liron teleoperate a robot to tidy up random kitchens. if a human did it nobody would be remotely impressed. AI controlling robots won’t be able to handle it two years hence, except as limited demos.
Liron Shapira
@liron
·
73d
I AM ONCE AGAIN ASKING:

What’s the least impressive thing you’re very sure AI still won’t be able to do in <2 years?

Get your prediction on the record now or shut up.
Noam Brown
@polynoamial
·
74d
Today, we at @OpenAI achieved a milestone that many considered years away: gold medal-level performance on the 2025 IMO with a general reasoning LLM—under the same time limits as humans, without tools. As remarkable as that sounds, it’s even more significant than the headline 🧵

The statement is part of a broader public discourse on the capabilities and future of AI, specifically in the context of AI's ability to perform tasks that are currently unimpressive for humans. The conversation involves predictions and opinions on AI development timelines, which are relevant to public interest and technological advancement.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm with words or actions. It is part of a technical discussion about AI capabilities. [+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 discussion about AI predictions, which can foster empathy and compassion for differing viewpoints on technological progress. [+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 providing a prediction and inviting others to share their views, without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]