Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
Jürgen Schmidhuber
@SchmidhuberAI
·
145d
Who invented convolutional neural networks (CNNs)?

1969: Fukushima had CNN-relevant ReLUs [2].

1979: Fukushima had the basic CNN architecture with convolution layers and downsampling layers [1]. Compute was 100 x more costly than in 1989, and a billion x more costly than
11/16/2025, 6:17:01 PM
X
In reply to:
Clint J.
@SearchDataEng
·
39d
@GaryMarcus @ylecun Grok https://x.com/i/grok/share/zDZgS…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
39d
@SearchDataEng @ylecun correct. where is that from?
Clint J.
@SearchDataEng
·
39d
@GaryMarcus @ylecun 🔭
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
39d
@SearchDataEng @ylecun nope, none of them
Clint J.
@SearchDataEng
·
39d
@GaryMarcus @ylecun All 5 I guess
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
39d
Quick, which of these five ideas was originally due to @YLeCun?

The idea of convolutional neural networks
The idea that LLMs would not lead to AGI.
The idea that pure scaling would not get us to AGI?
The idea that commonsense and physical reasoning were crucial to AGI?
The idea

The statement engages in a technical discussion about the history and contributions to convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and critiques of large language models (LLMs). It references specific individuals and their contributions, aiming to clarify historical inaccuracies and provide context. The tone is corrective and informative, focusing on setting the record straight regarding the origins of CNNs and the critiques of LLMs.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to correct misinformation, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm by promoting accurate information. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By providing historical context and clarification, the statement promotes understanding and knowledge sharing. [+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 dialogue by addressing inaccuracies without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]