Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47

Score 83

@davidmanheim @jm_alexia you could argue the analogy but the general point is correct; an over focus on LLMs has allowed the field to stagnate.

11/26/2025, 3:03:04 PM

In reply to:

David Manheim

@davidmanheim

@jm_alexia @GaryMarcus The analogy seems exactly the opposite of what happened for physics, and the equivalent seems likely for AI.

(Physics was stalled *before* Einstein, then accelerated afterwards: particle physics got QED, then the standard model, cosmology moved towards ΛCDM, etc.)

Alexia Jolicoeur-Martineau

@jm_alexia

It's relieving to see that other researchers are finally seeing the light.

We have been blindsided by LLMs. We need new methods if we want to truly reach AGI.

We cannot become like physics. Their field stagnated for decades after Einstein's big discoveries.

Lisan al Gaib

@scaling01

Ilya Sutskever: We are no longer in the age of scaling, we are back to the age of research

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the direction and focus of AI research, particularly the emphasis on large language models (LLMs) and its impact on the field's progress. It suggests that this focus has led to stagnation, implying a need for diversification in research approaches.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not cause harm and contributes to a constructive discussion about the direction of AI research. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
It promotes understanding by highlighting a perceived issue in the field and suggesting a need for broader research methods. [+1]
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 without personal attacks, focusing on the topic rather than individuals. [+1]