Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
11/19/2025, 5:59:23 AM
X
In reply to:
Amrith Krishna
@krishnamrith12
·
18d
@GaryMarcus @ylecun Low information density addresses pts. 2 & 3 in your article, and this talk was made on 2016 much before your 2019 "tweet" @GaryMarcus
Exponential divergence addresses points 4 and 5, and in fact @ylecun explcitly mentions "models of world" in the talk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=…
Amrith Krishna
@krishnamrith12
·
18d
@GaryMarcus @ylecun I am not sure what exactly is empty in the tweet. For instance his 2016 keynote talks about fundamental limitations of using autoregressive models, where he talks of low information density and exponential divergence
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
18d
@krishnamrith12 @ylecun literally empty. give specifics or go home.

i came with receipts; you came empty-handed.
Amrith Krishna
@krishnamrith12
·
18d
Having followed @ylecun's works closely for a decade or so, I would have to disagree with most of the points raised in this article.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
18d
lecun’s persistent pattern: https://garymarcus.substack.com/…

The statement is part of a public discourse involving a debate on the contributions and claims of a public figure in the field of AI. The tone is defensive and somewhat confrontational, aiming to clarify the timeline of contributions and challenge the accuracy of previous claims.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement attempts to clarify historical contributions, which aligns with striving to do no harm by providing factual information. However, the confrontational tone may not fully support this principle.
  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 engage in direct harassment or hate speech, but the overall conversation includes personal attacks, which can undermine respect for privacy and dignity. [-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 a form of constructive criticism by providing specific counterpoints, but the tone is somewhat adversarial, which can detract from constructive dialogue. [-1]