Gary Marcus

Rank 10 of 47

Score 117

-1

@prfsanjeevarora No, sir, you missed the point. Aside from objecting your tone, I find your reasoning to be inaccurate and sloppy:
1. Complex reasoning is erratic. There are all kinds of illustrations of failures in complex reasoning, such as Apple’s illustration of failure of Tower of Hanoi on 8

7/21/2025, 2:30:11 PM

In reply to:

Sanjeev Arora

@prfsanjeevarora

Completely misses the point. Nobody is suggesting that solving IMO problems is useful for math research. The point is that AI has become really good at complex reasoning, and is not just memorizing its training data. It can handle completely new IMO questions designed by a

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

Quote of the day:

I certainly don't agree that machines which can solve IMO problems will be useful for mathematicians doing research, in the same way that when I arrived in Cambridge UK as an undergraduate clutching my IMO gold medal I was in no position to help any of the

The statement is a critical response to a discussion about the capabilities of AI in complex reasoning, specifically in the context of solving International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) problems. The tone is critical and challenges the reasoning presented by @prfsanjeevarora, suggesting inaccuracies and sloppiness in the argument.

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 pointing out perceived inaccuracies in the reasoning of @prfsanjeevarora. However, it also includes a personal critique of the tone and reasoning as 'inaccurate and sloppy,' which could be seen as bordering on a personal attack rather than focusing solely on the argument. [-1]