I guess it is over for him
Filip Pieknewski next.
o3 and Grok 4 accidentally vindicate neurosymbolic AI
11–20 of 26 posts
Re: o3 and Grok 4 accidentally vindicate neurosymbolic AI
#12It's a very funny read. "See, LLMs that are allowed to use Python perform better than ones that aren't, and Python is symbolic, so I was right all along!" Looks like a surrender to me.
Surrender by whom?
Isn't his argument that leaders in the AI/ML space have consistently dismissed the need for that the entire point of the article? And that seems like a valid question to be after reading it.
And huge financial implications for the industry.
Re: o3 and Grok 4 accidentally vindicate neurosymbolic AI
#13He adopts a conspiratorial lens, (or at least implies it), that neurosymbolic AI was "kept down" over the last 4 decades, which is a very funny reframing of the fact that it simply never was useful enough to lift itself off the ground by the virtue of its own merits in the first place. If a ground-up neurosymbolic approached had shown promise in getting an AI system to the general level of intelligence LLM's have reached, it would have been adopted and scaled up. The money, research and effort went to what was useful, and transformers won out by virtue of their undeniable utility.
Re: o3 and Grok 4 accidentally vindicate neurosymbolic AI
#14It's a very funny read. "See, LLMs that are allowed to use Python perform better than ones that aren't, and Python is symbolic, so I was right all along!" Looks like a surrender to me.
Surrender by whom? Isn't his argument that leaders in the AI/ML space have consistently dismissed the need for that the entire point of the article? And that seems like a valid question to be after reading it. And huge financial implications for the industry.
By Gary Marcus, of course.
If he claims that giving LLMs a Python interpreter is a huge win for his paradigm, then major AI companies have been "winning" since 2022.
Re: o3 and Grok 4 accidentally vindicate neurosymbolic AI
#15[deleted]
Re: o3 and Grok 4 accidentally vindicate neurosymbolic AI
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surrender by whom? Isn't his argument that leaders in the AI/ML space have consistently dismissed the need for that the entire point of the article? And that seems like a valid question to be after reading it. And huge financial implications for the industry.
By Gary Marcus, of course. If he claims that giving LLMs a Python interpreter is a huge win for his paradigm, then major AI companies have been "winning" since 2022.
Jobs described computers as bicycles for the mind.
Turns out that LLMs find bicycles useful too.
Re: o3 and Grok 4 accidentally vindicate neurosymbolic AI
#17[deleted]
Re: o3 and Grok 4 accidentally vindicate neurosymbolic AI
#18As far as I can tell, putting the conspiratorial thinking aside, he's not really wrong, but I'm also not sure it matters that much.
If neurosymbolic AI was "sidelined" in favor of "connectionist" pure NN scaling, I don't think it was part of a conspiracy or deeply embedded ideological bias. I mean, maybe that's the case, but it seems far more likely to me that pure deep learning scaling just provided a more incremental and accessible on-ramp to building real-world systems that are genuinely useful for hundreds of millions of users. If anything, I think the lesson here was to spend less time theory-crafting and more time building. In this case, it looks like it was the builders who got to the endpoint that was only imagined by the theory-crafters, and that's what matters at the end of the day.
Re: o3 and Grok 4 accidentally vindicate neurosymbolic AI
#19It's a very funny read. "See, LLMs that are allowed to use Python perform better than ones that aren't, and Python is symbolic, so I was right all along!" Looks like a surrender to me.
[deleted]
Re: o3 and Grok 4 accidentally vindicate neurosymbolic AI
#20It's a very funny read. "See, LLMs that are allowed to use Python perform better than ones that aren't, and Python is symbolic, so I was right all along!" Looks like a surrender to me.
I'm not really a follower of low level implementation of AIs. Why would python tool use(among others) not qualify as symbolic? I don't think it's under question that tool use vastly improves LLMs.