Gary Marcus

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 35
7/22/2025, 12:38:52 AM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
56d
@AndrewLampinen if they use symbols and they are neural i don’t see what the argument is that they aren’t neurosymbolic

unless i am missing something, anything else just seems redefinitional?
Andrew Lampinen
@AndrewLampinen
·
56d
@GaryMarcus To be clear though, from my perspective / our SB paper even using language flexibly is engaging in symbol use to a graded degree. From that perspective the "neurosymbolic" take is essentially not contentful, since these systems *already* use symbols (imperfectly, like humans).
Andrew Lampinen
@AndrewLampinen
·
56d
@GaryMarcus program to answer a question, then run it); and I think that's a good thing. Often, such systems don't need tools a
at test time — even if they help learning; just as a math student might have used Matlab or whatever in some classes but can still answer test questions without it.
Andrew Lampinen
@AndrewLampinen
·
56d
@GaryMarcus Regarding 2) I obviously can't say more than is public (and I didn't work on the IMO project so I don't know the details). But I think the general point I want to make is that the LM paradigms are moving towards using classic symbol systems as tools (e.g. write a quick Python 4/
Andrew Lampinen
@AndrewLampinen
·
56d
@GaryMarcus But my critique isn't so much about the words but the *approach* in which deep learning is embedded in a symbolic reasoning system, which I'm suggesting is the opposite of how humans (e.g. in math) work: a messy system using symbols as tools to solve certain kinds of problems 3/
Andrew Lampinen
@AndrewLampinen
·
56d
@GaryMarcus You have made similar flavors of statements to that in the past, e.g. in this quote from https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00631 — though I agree your phrasing is more careful than some. 2/

The conversation involves a technical discussion on the integration of deep learning and symbolic systems, touching on the concept of neurosymbolic AI. The participants are engaging in a detailed exchange about the nature of symbol use in AI systems, referencing academic work and theories.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The discussion is respectful and focused on technical aspects, showing no intent to harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The conversation promotes understanding by exploring complex ideas in AI, contributing to a deeper comprehension of the topic. [+2]
  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 participants engage in constructive dialogue, addressing disagreements with reasoned arguments rather than personal attacks. [+2]