Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 115
7/22/2025, 3:15:02 PM
X
In reply to:
Andrew Lampinen
@AndrewLampinen
·
51d
@GaryMarcus
Andrew Lampinen
@AndrewLampinen
·
52d
@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/
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
51d
@AndrewLampinen i am still confused on #2. and doesn’t seem like you answered?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
52d
@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

The statement is part of a technical discussion on the integration of deep learning and symbolic systems, which is a relevant topic in AI research. The conversation involves sharing resources and clarifying positions on the use of neuro-symbolic AI.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The conversation is respectful and focused on clarifying technical points, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The exchange promotes understanding by sharing resources and discussing complex ideas in AI. [+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 dialogue is constructive, with participants seeking clarification and providing information without personal attacks. [+2]