Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 92
10/6/2025, 2:36:35 AM
X
In reply to:
Queen Nothing III
@Sudsiii
·
6h
@SkellyFreaks @GaryMarcus @elder_plinius @BasedBeffJezos Ask Gary. He’s the one who suggested that such a video wouldn’t be possible to make. And yeah, it’s actually amazing anything like this can come out of a simple prompt. You not being impressed is your problem.
Back East
@SkellyFreaks
·
6h
@Sudsiii @GaryMarcus @elder_plinius @BasedBeffJezos It isn't real so there isn't any reason to be impressed

I sure hope you aren't expecting us to be impressed with your "prompting (?)" skills ?

What are we supposed to be impressed with (?) in your opinion ? The tech to make a video of .. what u tell it to ?
Queen Nothing III
@Sudsiii
·
16h
@GaryMarcus @elder_plinius @BasedBeffJezos Got it in one try. What problem do you have with this rendering?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
19h
Crazy how people like @elder_plinius and @BasedBeffJezos are crowing about how great Sora 2 is at my old “horse rides astronaut prompt” when I find failures of physics and/or compositionality in practically every challenging prompt I try.

Beating the exact prompt I talked about
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
19h
The disembodied hand is a nice touch.

“a donkey rides on top of a bass guitarist who is on rollerskates, as they cross a football field. a mouse sits on top of the donkey.”

The conversation revolves around the capabilities of AI in generating images from prompts, with some participants expressing skepticism and others defending the technology. The tone is somewhat contentious, with participants challenging each other's opinions and interpretations.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm but is part of a critical discussion about AI capabilities.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it is more focused on defending a position. [-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 dialogue but lacks constructive criticism, focusing instead on defending against perceived misinterpretations. [-1]