Gary Marcus's Kafkaesque critique of GPT-3
nostalgebraist.tumblr.com
Gary Marcus's Kafkaesque critique of GPT-3
1–10 of 29 posts
Re: Gary Marcus's Kafkaesque critique of GPT-3
#2I'm pretty sure I read essentially the same rebuttal here weeks ago. That said, I think it's a valid rebuttal. Would the 'correct' answers be GPT-3 making meta-remarks about how you're giving it stupid prompts? Marcus knew what his conclusion would be and set out to find 'evidence' to support it. I think it's telling that the best he could find is so flimsy.
Re: Gary Marcus's Kafkaesque critique of GPT-3
#3I keep being surprised that anyone takes Gary Marcus seriously. As far as I know he hasn’t contributed anything meaningful to deep learning (or any other modern AI methods) but is always somehow there to criticize, waving his arms and shouting “but it’s not actually reasoning!” Baffling.
Edit: removed reference to Gary being a psychologist. It was distracting from the actual point.
Re: Gary Marcus's Kafkaesque critique of GPT-3
#4I keep being surprised that anyone takes Gary Marcus seriously. As far as I know he hasn’t contributed anything meaningful to deep learning (or any other modern AI methods) but is always somehow there to criticize, waving his arms and shouting “but it’s not actually reasoning!” Baffling. Edit: removed reference to Gary being a psychologist. It was distracting from the actual point.
While I don't necessarily agree with a lot of Gary Marcus' arguments re: AI, I don't think it's fair to gate-keep based on what you perceive his background is. AI is an incredibly multi-disciplinary field, and it's a little silly to imply that people coming from a psychology background cannot contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
Re: Gary Marcus's Kafkaesque critique of GPT-3
#5The bigger problem with efforts to assess GPT-3 output using AI Dungeon is that AI Dungeon doesn’t actually use GPT-3 the for the first response of a new adventure. If you attempt to start each prompt from a clean slate, you are actually seeing GPT-2 output. See here: https://twitter.com/nickwalton00/status/1289946861478936577
Re: Gary Marcus's Kafkaesque critique of GPT-3
#6I keep being surprised that anyone takes Gary Marcus seriously. As far as I know he hasn’t contributed anything meaningful to deep learning (or any other modern AI methods) but is always somehow there to criticize, waving his arms and shouting “but it’s not actually reasoning!” Baffling. Edit: removed reference to Gary being a psychologist. It was distracting from the actual point.
While I don't necessarily agree with a lot of Gary Marcus' arguments re: AI, I don't think it's fair to gate-keep based on what you perceive his background is. AI is an incredibly multi-disciplinary field, and it's a little silly to imply that people coming from a psychology background cannot contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
[deleted]
Re: Gary Marcus's Kafkaesque critique of GPT-3
#7I keep being surprised that anyone takes Gary Marcus seriously. As far as I know he hasn’t contributed anything meaningful to deep learning (or any other modern AI methods) but is always somehow there to criticize, waving his arms and shouting “but it’s not actually reasoning!” Baffling. Edit: removed reference to Gary being a psychologist. It was distracting from the actual point.
While I don't necessarily agree with a lot of Gary Marcus' arguments re: AI, I don't think it's fair to gate-keep based on what you perceive his background is. AI is an incredibly multi-disciplinary field, and it's a little silly to imply that people coming from a psychology background cannot contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
If his background were in selling used cars, would his opinion receive any traction at all? I think it's fair to question the relevance of somebody's background if their background is the root of their supposed relevance.
Re: Gary Marcus's Kafkaesque critique of GPT-3
#8Someone should make a Gary Marcus GPT-3 generator just to drown out his noise. the guy has become an annoying strawman-attacking robot
Re: Gary Marcus's Kafkaesque critique of GPT-3
#9I keep being surprised that anyone takes Gary Marcus seriously. As far as I know he hasn’t contributed anything meaningful to deep learning (or any other modern AI methods) but is always somehow there to criticize, waving his arms and shouting “but it’s not actually reasoning!” Baffling. Edit: removed reference to Gary being a psychologist. It was distracting from the actual point.
Eliezer Yudkowsky has zero credentials and has contributed nothing of note on the practical side, and yet I frequently see him touted as an "AI expert" (here and elsewhere on the internet).
There's no barrier to entry to posting your opinions on the internet, and (to the degree possible) it's usually better to judge the post on its own merits, rather than the author's.
Re: Gary Marcus's Kafkaesque critique of GPT-3
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I don't necessarily agree with a lot of Gary Marcus' arguments re: AI, I don't think it's fair to gate-keep based on what you perceive his background is. AI is an incredibly multi-disciplinary field, and it's a little silly to imply that people coming from a psychology background cannot contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
If his background were in selling used cars, would his opinion receive any traction at all? I think it's fair to question the relevance of somebody's background if their background is the root of their supposed relevance.
Or you could, you know, evaluate things on the technical merits