Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 115
9/1/2025, 5:28:08 PM
X
In reply to:
Peter Wildeford馃嚭馃嚫馃殌
@peterwildeford
路
13d
@GaryMarcus Hi Gary! There's an awful lot of nuance to unpack here that doesn't fit easily in the character limit. I have so much to say about it!

But some quick replies:

* the time horizon was ~2hrs actually, I realize the graph is small so that's hard to read

* Definitely far from doing
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
路
13d
@peterwildeford do you really think gpt-5 can do anything a human can in 4 hours with 50% accuracy?

and what would the curve be for 100% accuracy?

and what is the value of 50% accuracy?
Peter Wildeford馃嚭馃嚫馃殌
@peterwildeford
路
13d
"GPT-5 is on trend! GPT-5 is on trend!! deep learning isn't yet hitting a wall!", i continue to insist as i slowly shrink and transform into a corn cob

The statement engages in a discussion about the capabilities and interpretations of AI models, specifically GPT-5, which is a topic of public interest and debate. The tone is critical, expressing dissatisfaction with certain interpretations of AI benchmarks, particularly those extending beyond software. The intent seems to be to challenge or question prevailing narratives about AI capabilities.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm; it is a critique of interpretations rather than individuals.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement could promote understanding by encouraging a more nuanced view of AI capabilities, though it lacks detailed explanation.聽[+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 by questioning interpretations, but it could be more effective with specific examples or evidence.