Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

garymarcus.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 331 posts

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#2

Post by bluefirebrand »

I'm glad to read articles like this one, because I think it is important that we pour some water on the hype cycle

If we want to get serious about using these new AI tools then we need to come out of the clouds and get real about their capabilities

Are they impressive? Sure. Useful? Yes probably in a lot of cases

But we cannot continue the hype this way, it doesn't serve anyone except the people who are financially invested in these tools.

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#3

Post by hiddencost »

Why do we keep posting stuff from Gary? He's been wrong for decades but he keeps writing this stuff.

As far as I can tell he's the person that people reach for when they want to justify their beliefs. But surely being this wrong for this wrong should eventually lead to losing ones status as an expert.

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#4

Post by fhd2 »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #2

I'm glad to read articles like this one, because I think it is important that we pour some water on the hype cycle If we want to get serious about using these new AI tools then we need to come out of the clouds and get real about their capabilities Are they impressive? Sure. Useful? Yes probably in a lot of cases But we cannot continue the hype this way, it doesn't serve anyone except the people who are financially i…

Even of the people invested in these tools, hype only benefits those attempting a pump and dump scheme, or those selling training, consulting or similar services around AI.

People who try to make genuine progress, while there's more money in it now, might just have to deal with another AI winter soon at this rate.

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#6

Post by bluefirebrand »

fhd2 wrote: post #4
bluefirebrand wrote: post #2

I'm glad to read articles like this one, because I think it is important that we pour some water on the hype cycle If we want to get serious about using these new AI tools then we need to come out of the clouds and get real about their capabilities Are they impressive? Sure. Useful? Yes probably in a lot of cases But we cannot continue the hype this way, it doesn't serve anyone except the people who are financially i…

Even of the people invested in these tools, hype only benefits those attempting a pump and dump scheme, or those selling training, consulting or similar services around AI. People who try to make genuine progress, while there's more money in it now, might just have to deal with another AI winter soon at this rate.

> hype only benefits those attempting a pump and dump scheme

I read some posts the other day saying Sam Altman sold off a ton of his OpenAI shares. Not sure if it's true and I can't find a good source, but if it is true then "pump and dump" does look close to the mark

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#7

Post by NoahZuniga »

hiddencost wrote: post #3

Why do we keep posting stuff from Gary? He's been wrong for decades but he keeps writing this stuff. As far as I can tell he's the person that people reach for when they want to justify their beliefs. But surely being this wrong for this wrong should eventually lead to losing ones status as an expert.

None of the arguments presented in this piece depend on his authority as an expert, so this is largely irrelevant.

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#9

Post by jakewins »

hiddencost wrote: post #3

Why do we keep posting stuff from Gary? He's been wrong for decades but he keeps writing this stuff. As far as I can tell he's the person that people reach for when they want to justify their beliefs. But surely being this wrong for this wrong should eventually lead to losing ones status as an expert.

I thought this article seemed like well articulated criticism of the hype cycle - can you be more specific what you mean? Are the results in the Apple paper incorrect?
Post reply on HN