7 ms·

Gary Marcus is the definition of petty. He brands himself as an ai skeptic but in reality he's just a clout chaser more obsessed with being right and his own im

Gary Marcus is the definition of petty. He brands himself as an ai skeptic but in reality he's just a clout chaser more obsessed with being right and his own image than anything else. In his mind he is always right. Every single tweet he made, every single sentence he has said is never wrong. He is 100% right everyone else is 100% wrong.

actually_a_dog 4y ago
So what? Is he actually right, or is he wrong? A good argument delivered badly is still a good argument.
- sdenton4 4y ago
  He's a fool who hurls criticisms, gets repeatedly disproven, and doesn't actually execute on anything. It's obvious why le cun's words carry more weight; he and his labs get shit done; he speaks from experience, not sophistry. In other words, Gary Marcus has managed to match some linguistic sub-patterns between two articles, but has not proved he is intelligent.
  - mrtranscendence 4y ago
    He’s matched some “linguistic patterns” that seem to indicate that LeCun has adopted ideas for which people like you call Marcus a fool. I’m going to cut him some slack.
    - sdenton4 4y ago
      Just giving back exactly the level of consideration he gives to ML as a field... Pattern matching isn't intelligence, after all.
- trrbb123 4y ago
  Name one academic you look up to who never admits he is wrong.
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    I'll be glad to do so after you explain how that's relevant any argument they may make.
- adamsmith143 4y ago
  >LeCun, 2022: Today's AI approaches will never lead to true intelligence (reported in the headline, not a verbatim quote); Marcus, 2018: “deep learning must be supplemented by other techniques if we are to reach artificial general intelligence.” If you think that is substantive evidence for a stolen idea then it's surely not possible for anyone to ever have an original thought.
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    > If you think that is substantive evidence for a stolen idea He says in the article that he doesn't think it's a stolen idea: "I won’t accuse LeCun of plagiarism, because I think he probably reached these conclusions honestly, after recognizing the failures of current architectures."

actually_a_dog 4y ago

So what? Is he actually right, or is he wrong? A good argument delivered badly is still a good argument.

sdenton4 4y ago
He's a fool who hurls criticisms, gets repeatedly disproven, and doesn't actually execute on anything. It's obvious why le cun's words carry more weight; he and his labs get shit done; he speaks from experience, not sophistry. In other words, Gary Marcus has managed to match some linguistic sub-patterns between two articles, but has not proved he is intelligent.
- mrtranscendence 4y ago
  He’s matched some “linguistic patterns” that seem to indicate that LeCun has adopted ideas for which people like you call Marcus a fool. I’m going to cut him some slack.
  - sdenton4 4y ago
    Just giving back exactly the level of consideration he gives to ML as a field... Pattern matching isn't intelligence, after all.
trrbb123 4y ago
Name one academic you look up to who never admits he is wrong.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  I'll be glad to do so after you explain how that's relevant any argument they may make.
adamsmith143 4y ago
>LeCun, 2022: Today's AI approaches will never lead to true intelligence (reported in the headline, not a verbatim quote); Marcus, 2018: “deep learning must be supplemented by other techniques if we are to reach artificial general intelligence.” If you think that is substantive evidence for a stolen idea then it's surely not possible for anyone to ever have an original thought.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > If you think that is substantive evidence for a stolen idea He says in the article that he doesn't think it's a stolen idea: "I won’t accuse LeCun of plagiarism, because I think he probably reached these conclusions honestly, after recognizing the failures of current architectures."