Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
11/26/2025, 3:14:02 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
3d
@GaryMarcus @jm_alexia For instance, even if you are correct, as seems plausible, that neurosymbolic approaches are going to be what leads to real general intelligence, those will be used in concert with, or be used or developed by, the LLMs.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
167d
@GaryMarcus @ChrisPainterYup And to the extent that solving with code is a victory for neurosymbolic AI, it seems like neurosymbolic AI is emergent from the methods you view as fundamentally limited. So rather than needing a new approach, it seems LLMs are getting there. But that's not your view, I believe.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
3d
@GaryMarcus @jm_alexia I think the more likely future follows the prototype - that is, I expect that the boost from LLMs and their capabilities enables or is even necessary for the future progress, rather than distracting from those other approaches.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
3d
@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.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
3d
@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
·
4d
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
·
4d
Ilya Sutskever: We are no longer in the age of scaling, we are back to the age of research

The statement is part of a technical discussion on the future of AI, specifically the role of neurosymbolic hybrids in achieving general intelligence. It engages with public discourse on AI development and research directions.

  1. 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 on AI methodologies. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by clarifying the role of neurosymbolic hybrids in AI development. [+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 without personal attacks, focusing on the technical aspects of the debate. [+1]