Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
11/26/2025, 3:18:55 PM
X
In reply to:
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
3d
@GaryMarcus @jm_alexia Right, but if those hybrids end up leading to AGI, I think it would be a vindication of the claim that we needed the LLM progress to enable other eventually successful approaches.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
3d
@davidmanheim @jm_alexia um, that is the whole point of neurosymbolic hybrids
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.)

The statement is part of a substantive discussion on the development and future of AI technologies, specifically focusing on the role of large language models (LLMs) and the need for new ideas in the field. It critiques the current focus and resource allocation towards LLMs, suggesting that it may have delayed progress in AI. The tone is critical but not hostile, aiming to contribute to the debate on AI development strategies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and maintains a professional tone, adhering to the principle of doing no harm with words. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by engaging in a discussion about the direction of AI research, though it could be more empathetic towards differing views. [+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 criticism of the current focus on LLMs without resorting to personal attacks, adhering to the principle of constructive dialogue. [+2]
  4. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses the platform to discuss the betterment of AI research, aligning with the principle of using influence for societal betterment. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech and uses the platform responsibly to discuss public concerns about AI research directions. [+1]