Gary Marcus

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 29
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
57d
Which system do you think will be more useful in practice?

(Full solutions not shown)
7/21/2025, 7:43:44 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
57d
@prfsanjeevarora 1. Of course you can be excited about progress on IMO with believing that this will take over math research. In certain ways, that was actually the point of Buzzard’s quote that I shared. We don’t disagree there. I just worry that a lot of people seem not to understand this, and
Sanjeev Arora
@prfsanjeevarora
·
57d
@GaryMarcus I am only saying that people (like myself) can be excited about progress on AI for IMO *without* believing that this means AI will take over math research. Your post conflated those two viewpoints.

Certainly current models show many failures in complex reasoning. I
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
58d
@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

The conversation involves a discussion on the role of AI in solving International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) problems and its implications for mathematical research. The tone is analytical, with participants expressing differing viewpoints on the utility of AI in complex reasoning tasks. The discussion touches on the potential and limitations of AI in mathematics, reflecting a broader debate on technology's role in academic fields.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The conversation is generally respectful, though there is a slight objection to tone, indicating a minor violation of striving to do no harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The discussion promotes understanding by exploring different perspectives on AI's capabilities and limitations. [+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.
    There is constructive criticism and dialogue, though one participant notes an objection to tone, suggesting a need for more respectful engagement.