Gary Marcus

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 29
7/21/2025, 8:38:22 PM
X
In reply to:
FeltSteam0
@FeltSteam
·
57d
@realKingRoland9 @GaryMarcus I haven't seen anywhere publish results showing models can’t do this I just haven’t seen this tested at all.
Roland
@realKingRoland9
·
57d
@FeltSteam @GaryMarcus No AI has met even one of Marcus’s five operational AGI yardsticks under controlled, peer-reviewed tests. No published evidence shows Gemini 2.5 or any LLM reliably passing the movie or novel comprehension benchmarks.
FeltSteam0
@FeltSteam
·
58d
@GaryMarcus When was the last time you tested AI models on these 5 things (or 4 of them excluding the robotics for now)? I feel like current AI models like Gemini 2.5 Pro would perform quite well on the first two challenges (for books and movies released past their knowledge cutoff).
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
58d
“a good set of challenges” for AGI from 2022
• none have been solved
• community accepted them as legit at the time
• goalposts haven’t moved

translation and lessons:
1. people are making shit up when they say I am moving my goalposts; they haven’t changed.
2. those with
Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh
@S_OhEigeartaigh
·
1204d
This is a really good set of 5 challenges for AI laid down by Gary Marcus as a test for AGI. Kudos for a great operationalisation, and putting money on the table (against a billionaire)!

The statement is part of a public discourse on the capabilities and testing of AI models, specifically in relation to AGI benchmarks proposed by Gary Marcus. The conversation involves multiple participants discussing the validity and results of AI testing, which is a substantive engagement with a public issue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and encourages a focus on what AI models can achieve, aligning with a positive and constructive approach. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by suggesting a focus on testing AI capabilities, which can foster a more informed discussion about AI's potential. [+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 addressing the topic of AI testing without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]