Gary Marcus

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 35
7/22/2025, 12:41:18 AM
X
In reply to:
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/
Andrew Lampinen
@AndrewLampinen
·
56d
@GaryMarcus Thanks!
1) I was trying to distill a sentiment, thinking of papers like these:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.00813
https://openreview.net/forum?id=…
E.g. "neural network[s ...] effectively model machine perception, symbolic knowledge-based AI is better suited for modeling machine cognition. " 1/
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
56d
@AndrewLampinen Andrew, fascinating thread. Two questions,

1. Who has actually argued “Even now, (neuro)symbolic advocates often argue that pure symbol manipulation is the only "real" intelligence, and "messy" deep learning should just be an input to symbol manipulation”? I consider myself to
Andrew Lampinen
@AndrewLampinen
·
56d
In GOFAI, representations were discrete symbols, and reasoning was formal manipulation of them. Even now, (neuro)symbolic advocates often argue that pure symbol manipulation is the only "real" intelligence, and "messy" deep learning should just be an input to symbol manipulation.
Andrew Lampinen
@AndrewLampinen
·
56d
Why do I think that's important? Because it's part of a long-term shift in how AI approaches the role of symbols in reasoning and intelligence — a shift we've been focusing on for a while, that I think brings symbols in AI closer to their role in human intelligence.
Andrew Lampinen
@AndrewLampinen
·
56d
Our LM (and others) achieved gold-medal performance in the international Math Olympiad (). Importantly, unlike last year's silver, this system used natural language end-to-end, rather than relying on a verifiable formal language.

The statement engages in a discussion about the integration of deep learning and symbolic systems in AI, referencing specific academic papers and quotes. It reflects an intellectual exchange on AI methodologies, emphasizing the importance of integration and flexible orchestration of multiple mechanisms.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement is intellectually engaging and does not cause harm, as it focuses on academic discourse. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by referencing specific works and quotes, contributing to a deeper discussion on AI. [+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, acknowledging the other person's contribution and providing clarification. [+1]