Gary Marcus

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 35
7/22/2025, 12:44:02 AM
X
In reply to:
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/
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.

The statement engages in a technical discussion about the integration of deep learning and symbolic reasoning in AI, reflecting on the nature of human cognition and AI development. It acknowledges different perspectives and contributes to an ongoing debate in AI research.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm and is part of a constructive academic discussion. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by acknowledging different viewpoints and the complexity of AI systems. [+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.
    Engages in constructive dialogue without personal attacks, focusing on the technical aspects of the debate. [+1]