4 ms·

Why is he not respectable?

by an0malous 1y ago

pols45 1y ago
Cause he hasn't built anything or found a job since he sold his last company ages ago.
- Supermancho 1y ago
  Respect can be earned through many means, not just through goalposts set by financiers.
  - pols45 1y ago
    Gary Marcus is not changing the story financiers are telling each other about AI. He has been telling the same story without making a dent in their stories. And that is because he is not in the arena. What he says, does and thinks doesn't matter.
- anothernewdude 1y ago
  So upon finding success, he has escaped the struggle that people are forced into against their will. How unreasonable of him.
ants_everywhere 1y ago
Gary Marcus has a very particular view of human psychology that was popular for a while, especially in the early 2000s. Major proponents include Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky, Jerry Fodor. This view was heavily influenced by symbolic computers when symbolic computers were new and so held some mental share leading into the dotcom boom. For several reasons, one of which is the replication crisis, this view is no longer nearly as popular. One of the major beliefs of this view is that LLMs are essentially impossible because there's not enough information in language to learn it unless you have a special purpose language-learning module built into the brain by evolution. This is Chomsky's "poverty of the stimulus" argument. Marcus still defends this view and because of this bias is committed to trying to prove to everyone that LLMs are not possible or at least that they're some kind of illusion. There's a sense in which they threaten his fundamental concept of how the brain works. In proposing and defending these views he appears to me and others to be having a sort of internal crisis that's playing out publicly where his need to be right about this is coloring his judgment and objectivity.
- pinnochio 1y ago
  > LLMs are essentially impossible > trying to prove to everyone that LLMs are not possible or at least that they're some kind of illusion This is such poor phrasing I can't help but wonder if it was intentional. The argument is over whether LLMs are capable of AGI, not whether "LLMs are possible". You also 100% do not have to buy into Chomsky's theory of the brain to believe LLMs won't achieve AGI.
  - ants_everywhere 1y ago
    We weren't talking about AGI. It sounds like that's a topic you are interested in. It's a fine topic just not the one we're discussing. And my phrasing was wonderful and perfect.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 1y ago
      > And my phrasing was wonderful and perfect. Do you use LLMs to post on HN? I'm asking seriously.
      - ants_everywhere 1y ago
        Nope. I would appreciate if you and the GP not personally insult me when you have a question though. You may feel that you know Marcus to be into one particular thing but some of us have been familiar with his work long before he pivoted to AI.
        pinnochio 1y ago
        There are two problems with your post. The first is that your phrasing "that LLMs are not possible or at least that they're some kind of illusion" collapses the claim being made to the point where it looks as if you're saying Marcus believes people are just deluded that something called a "LLM" exists in the world. But even allowing for some inference as to what you actually meant, it remains ambiguous whether you are talking about language acquisition (which you are in your 2nd paragraph) or the genuine understanding and reasoning / robust world model induction necessary for AGI, which is the focus of Marcus' recent discussion on LLMs, and why we're even talking about Marcus here in the first place. You seem more familiar with Marcus' thinking on language acquisition than I, so I can only assume that his thinking on language acquisition and LLMs is somewhat related to his thinking on understanding and reasoning / world model induction and LLMs. But it doesn't appear to me, based on what I've read of Marcus, that his claims about the latter really depend on Chomsky. Which brings me to the 2nd problem with your post, where you make the uncharitable claim that "he appears to me and others to be having a sort of internal crisis that's playing out publicly", as if it were simply impossible to believe that LLMs are not capable of genuine understanding / robust world model induction otherwise.

Why is he not respectable?

pols45 1y ago

Cause he hasn't built anything or found a job since he sold his last company ages ago.

Supermancho 1y ago
Respect can be earned through many means, not just through goalposts set by financiers.
- pols45 1y ago
  Gary Marcus is not changing the story financiers are telling each other about AI. He has been telling the same story without making a dent in their stories. And that is because he is not in the arena. What he says, does and thinks doesn't matter.
anothernewdude 1y ago
So upon finding success, he has escaped the struggle that people are forced into against their will. How unreasonable of him.

ants_everywhere 1y ago

Gary Marcus has a very particular view of human psychology that was popular for a while, especially in the early 2000s. Major proponents include Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky, Jerry Fodor. This view was heavily influenced by symbolic computers when symbolic computers were new and so held some mental share leading into the dotcom boom. For several reasons, one of which is the replication crisis, this view is no longer nearly as popular. One of the major beliefs of this view is that LLMs are essentially impossible because there's not enough information in language to learn it unless you have a special purpose language-learning module built into the brain by evolution. This is Chomsky's "poverty of the stimulus" argument. Marcus still defends this view and because of this bias is committed to trying to prove to everyone that LLMs are not possible or at least that they're some kind of illusion. There's a sense in which they threaten his fundamental concept of how the brain works. In proposing and defending these views he appears to me and others to be having a sort of internal crisis that's playing out publicly where his need to be right about this is coloring his judgment and objectivity.

pinnochio 1y ago
> LLMs are essentially impossible > trying to prove to everyone that LLMs are not possible or at least that they're some kind of illusion This is such poor phrasing I can't help but wonder if it was intentional. The argument is over whether LLMs are capable of AGI, not whether "LLMs are possible". You also 100% do not have to buy into Chomsky's theory of the brain to believe LLMs won't achieve AGI.
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
  We weren't talking about AGI. It sounds like that's a topic you are interested in. It's a fine topic just not the one we're discussing. And my phrasing was wonderful and perfect.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 1y ago
    > And my phrasing was wonderful and perfect. Do you use LLMs to post on HN? I'm asking seriously.
    - ants_everywhere 1y ago
      Nope. I would appreciate if you and the GP not personally insult me when you have a question though. You may feel that you know Marcus to be into one particular thing but some of us have been familiar with his work long before he pivoted to AI.
      - pinnochio 1y ago
        There are two problems with your post. The first is that your phrasing "that LLMs are not possible or at least that they're some kind of illusion" collapses the claim being made to the point where it looks as if you're saying Marcus believes people are just deluded that something called a "LLM" exists in the world. But even allowing for some inference as to what you actually meant, it remains ambiguous whether you are talking about language acquisition (which you are in your 2nd paragraph) or the genuine understanding and reasoning / robust world model induction necessary for AGI, which is the focus of Marcus' recent discussion on LLMs, and why we're even talking about Marcus here in the first place. You seem more familiar with Marcus' thinking on language acquisition than I, so I can only assume that his thinking on language acquisition and LLMs is somewhat related to his thinking on understanding and reasoning / world model induction and LLMs. But it doesn't appear to me, based on what I've read of Marcus, that his claims about the latter really depend on Chomsky. Which brings me to the 2nd problem with your post, where you make the uncharitable claim that "he appears to me and others to be having a sort of internal crisis that's playing out publicly", as if it were simply impossible to believe that LLMs are not capable of genuine understanding / robust world model induction otherwise.