Comment by janalsncm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by janalsncm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It’s hard to take Gary Marcus seriously. There is a mix of correct-but obvious, uncharitable, and confusing multiple things into one generally pessimistic screed.

Yes, scaling laws aren’t “laws” they are more like observed trends in a complex system.

No, Nvidia stock prices aren’t relevant. When they were high 3 months ago did Gary Marcus think it implied infinite LLMs were the future? Of course not. There are plenty of applications of GPUs that aren’t LLMs and aren’t going away.

(In general, stock prices also incorporate second-order effects like my ability to sell tulip bulbs to a sucker, which make their prices irrational.)

Sam Altman’s job isn’t to give calculated statements about AI. He is a hype man. His job is to make rich people and companies want to give him more money. If Gary Marcus is a counterpoint to that, it’s very surface level. Marcus claims to be a scientist or engineer but I don’t see any of that hard work in what he writes, which is probably because his real job is being on Twitter.

Your criticisms seem to attack the less important bits. If Marcus' view was the majority opinion, your comments might make sense. But the AI and AGI hype is everywhere, and we need a great deal more of "correct-but obvious" commentary to pierce the hype bubble.

Yes, and if it was only “correct but obvious” that would be a fair point. The issue is in mixing in the “wrong and irrelevant” bits. As I said, the piece is immediately stronger by removing the irrelevant stock market commentary. (And if his view is truly a minority view, it’s hard to believe Gary Marcus style skepticism was responsible for the correction.)

> Sam Altman’s job isn’t to give calculated statements about AI. He is a hype man. His job is to make rich people and companies want to give him more money.

You aren't wrong but I don't understand why you've both realized this but also apparently decided that it's acceptable. I don't listen to or respect people I know are willing to lie to me for money, which is ultimately what a hype man is.

Uh, Marcus doesn't "claim to be a scientist", he is a scientist. He has a PhD from MIT in cognitive science and was a professor at NYU.

Altman is one the making bullshit claims left right and centre.

The point is that being a scientist doesn’t make everything one says science. He doesn’t even attempt to, anyways. There are actual researchers measuring the performance of these LLMs on various tasks, which is science. And then there is self-aggrandizing Substack posts with selective callbacks to vague claims, and goalpost moving for the rest.

The counterpunch to hype man bs isn’t more bs stating the opposite.

No, that was not the point the post made. The point was to slag Marcus with an unsubstantiated insinuation that he's not a scientist. Revise all you like, it's bullshit.

Quoting myself

> but I don’t see any of that hard work in what he writes

I didn’t say he wasn’t a scientist. I said his pontifications aren’t backed by the hard work of doing real research.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com