Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47

|

Score 115

+1

@jeffreyleefunk @DerekWiner also the above is mainly an argument via “you must be stupid because somebody else didn’t see something” which is a pretty weak form of argument.

the more so since of course other people who didn’t think jet packs etc would change the world aren’t considered.

arguing from a

9/1/2025, 11:18:10 AM

In reply to:

jeffrey lee funk

@jeffreyleefunk

·

13d

@DerekWiner @GaryMarcus The microprocessor was invented in 1971 but the stock market didn't take off in 1975 because of it. Fast forward 50 years and the stock market has exploded due to LLMs, and Gary is responding to that.

Derek Winer 🌐 /acc

@DerekWiner

·

14d

@GaryMarcus This is crack up. You’ve gone too far.

Gary, the microprocessor was invented in the early 1970s. At that time, nobody would have argued it was “more important” than phones, televisions, cars, or typewriters. Yet it quietly ate the world. Today it sits at the core of every

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

·

14d

I genuinely can’t believe that some people think that LLMs are more consequential than cell phones, smart phones, laptops, tablets, email, text messaging, the internet, word processors, etc.

I could easily go a week without an LLM. Or a year. Or forever.

I would really miss

Matt Lieberman🇺🇦

@social_brains

·

14d

@GaryMarcus I agree that AGI is unlikely to come from the current LLM architecture, but LLMs are the most consequential invention of my lifetime. It has made me smarter and more efficient in 100 different ways. Far more pros than cons.

The statement critiques an argument style used in a discussion about the impact of technological advancements, specifically LLMs and microprocessors. It points out the weakness in using an argument that relies on dismissing others' views based on perceived ignorance, without considering broader perspectives.

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 by pointing out the weakness in the argument style used in the discussion. It does not resort to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, but rather focuses on the logical structure of the argument. [+1]