Gary Marcus

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 79
7/25/2025, 3:12:27 PM
X
In reply to:
Jason Pontin
@jason_pontin
·
34d
@GaryMarcus @geoffreyhinton I don’t understand—well, I do—how he can be so smart about weights, algorithms, and maths, and do conceptually wrong and philosophically at sea.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
34d
A neural network is not a “being”, @geoffreyhinton, any more than a Tetris app on your phone is. (Reinstall Tetris and it comes back to life!)
vitrupo
@vitrupo
·
36d
Geoffrey Hinton says LLMs are immortal.

Destroy the hardware, save the weights. Rebuild them later, and “the very same being comes back to life.”

But humans don't work that way. We're bound to our substrate.

Not even Kurzweil gets a backup.

The statement engages in a discussion about the nature of neural networks and their comparison to human beings, referencing the 'halo effect' to critique the perception of expertise. The tone is analytical and somewhat critical, aiming to highlight a perceived inconsistency in the argument about AI's 'immortality.'

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is part of a broader intellectual debate. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by referencing the 'halo effect,' encouraging critical thinking about expertise and perception. [+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 criticism without personal attacks, focusing on the argument rather than the individual. [+1]