51–56 of 56 posts
Why. Do. We. Keep. Posting. Gary. Marcus. He's been writing variants of this kind of thing for decades and he's always been wrong.
Please explain in as much detail as you can because that is a very bold statement
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just short Nvidia. If the thing goes bang then that’ll be one of the big losers.
"Just short Nvidia" Is this financial advice? :-)
This is something where Google, Microsoft, and Apple, will really be able to dominate. Lots of businesses I've seen have already been using copilot for asking questions about their entire sharepoint library. The underlying model I expect could quite easily be gpt5, Claude, or even DS R1 without anyone really caring or noticing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's possible to notice a trend while still having the wit to realize you can't precisely time that trend well enough to profit from it. Another example might be, "Trump is increasingly old, feeble, and incapable of doing his job... but I'm not sure how that will translate into how long he's able to keep the job. It's possible that he could be a vegetable at some point and still POTUS." Demanding that people gamble w…
It's not orthogonal. And you will find people will change their mind when forced to put a little money on the line. "Team X is definitely winning, I'm certain". "So you'll offer me 1000-1 on the opponent?". "No". "6-1?", "No". They often realize they are about 65% certain at some point. And they often aren't being hyperbolic, they are just not thinking clearly.
Clearly not. Does the fact that few of us know the date of our death imply that we might live forever?
does he think truly think e.g. opus 4.5 is "plateaued"? i really can't even vaguely take him seriously if he actually thinks that. what a silly man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not orthogonal. And you will find people will change their mind when forced to put a little money on the line. "Team X is definitely winning, I'm certain". "So you'll offer me 1000-1 on the opponent?". "No". "6-1?", "No". They often realize they are about 65% certain at some point. And they often aren't being hyperbolic, they are just not thinking clearly.
There was a point after which the outcome of WWII was obvious and inevitable, but could you have timed the ending to within a week or two based on that knowledge? Should the inability to precisely time something imply that the arc of its future can’t be obvious? Clearly not. Does the fact that few of us know the date of our death imply that we might live forever?