Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 97
7/30/2025, 1:04:53 AM
X
In reply to:
Alex Colon
@CEOAlexColon
·
17d
@GaryMarcus @zudasworld Out of the box, no agent is capable of perfect execution every time. Provide the right infrastructure, tools, context, etc and they're extremely capable. They may not be AGI agents but they are absolutely viable agents.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
17d
@zudasworld @CEOAlexColon for starters. general purposes agents can take care of all of my boring tasks as well as a good human personal assistant could
zuda
@zudasworld
·
17d
@GaryMarcus @CEOAlexColon What do you want to see from agents?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
17d
@CEOAlexColon for anything other than code?

my jan 1 2025 prediction on agents was “AI “Agents” will be endlessly hyped throughout 2025 but far from reliable, except possibly in very narrow use cases.”
Alex Colon
@CEOAlexColon
·
17d
@GaryMarcus I've been cruising with Claude code, Comet, and a few others just fine. Sooo... Yeah. Year of agents for sure. I'm more productive than I've ever been. And the occasional mistake they make is more than made up with the mountain of tasks and skills I wouldn't be capable of.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
17d
does anybody still think that 2025 is going to be the year of AI agents or we just going to forget people ran around saying that last year?

The conversation engages in a substantive discussion about the current state and future of AI agents, addressing their capabilities, limitations, and adoption challenges. It reflects differing opinions on the reliability and potential of AI agents, contributing to the broader discourse on AI technology.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The discussion does not cause harm and focuses on sharing insights about AI agents. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The conversation promotes understanding by discussing the capabilities and limitations of AI agents. [+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.
    Participants engage in constructive dialogue, presenting differing viewpoints without personal attacks. [+1]