Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
11/9/2025, 6:28:58 PM
X
In reply to:
juliette pluto 🌌
@foundjuliette
·
46d
@GaryMarcus @RomeoLupascu yup! agreed. and i would argue that in principle same outcome is possible with sufficiently advanced models based on current architectures.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
46d
@foundjuliette @RomeoLupascu ish. but to the extent that it does it relies heavily on the following and enforcement of rules stated symbolically.
juliette pluto 🌌
@foundjuliette
·
46d
@RomeoLupascu @GaryMarcus I hear you; and I don’t disagree on symbolic systems being far safer and more testable. That said, wouldn’t you say that humans are likewise untestable? Each individual and every new generation presents an alignment problem. and yet society functions.
Romeo Lupascu
@RomeoLupascu
·
46d
@foundjuliette @GaryMarcus There are many angles that this tech can't be constrained enough to make it safe.

When creating software (applies to hardware too) that is reliable one must ensure its total behavior is known understood and experienced at least once.

That is normally achieve in classical
juliette pluto 🌌
@foundjuliette
·
46d
@GaryMarcus Curious to understand your perspective on this; do you think it’s impossible for deep learning + RL LLMs to reach acceptable levels of robustness? Or just improbably unlikely.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
54d
“LLM security remains an unsolved problem”

And it always will.

We need new architectures, or we are screwed.

The statement is dismissive and sarcastic, implying that the individuals being discussed lack basic knowledge or skills, which detracts from the constructive nature of the conversation. It does not engage substantively with the public issue of AI safety and robustness being discussed in the thread.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm, as it dismisses the capabilities of others in a sarcastic manner, potentially causing harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not respect the dignity of others, as it implies a lack of intelligence or capability, which could be seen as a form of disrespect or harassment. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it dismisses the argument without engaging with it constructively. [-1]
  4. 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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it resorts to a dismissive tone rather than addressing the argument substantively. [-1]