2 ms·

I think it's fair to say though that if your results may vary, and be wrong, then they're not reliable enough for many use-cases. I'd have to see his full argum

I think it's fair to say though that if your results may vary, and be wrong, then they're not reliable enough for many use-cases. I'd have to see his full argument though to see if that's what he was claiming. I'm just trying to be charitable here.

JKCalhoun 2y ago
I'm trying to be charitable as well — I suppose to both sides of the debate. Myself, I see pros and cons. The hype absolutely needs to be shut down, but a spokesperson that is more even-handed would be more convincing (in my opinion). Here is his post, FWIW: https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/grok-3-beta-in-shambles https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/grok-3-beta-in-shambles
- giardini 2y ago
  JKCalhoun says "...a spokesperson that is more even-handed would be more convincing (in my opinion)." Why? The stance of science toward new "discoveries" should always be skepticism.
  - JKCalhoun 2y ago
    I agree. I also think you can find the line between skepticism and partisanship.