3 ms·
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.
by jszymborski 6y ago
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 6y ago[deleted]
- liability 6y agoIf 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.
- tomcam 6y agoOr you could, you know, evaluate things on the technical merits
- liability 6y agoYou mean like the rebuttal the article gives? There is little more to Gary Marcus's position to rebut because his position is so weak. If he had a more relevant background then perhaps his opinions would have more substance and, consequently, warrant more substantial responses.
- visarga 6y agoIt's not that he is a psychologist, it's that he doesn't have any idea about what he's talking about in ML. It's important to have results when you want to change other people's opinions, he has only opinions. Let him do better than GPT-3 and show us how it's done.