Most of the current best AI systems fundamentally just learn contingencies rather than general abstract concepts that humans can apply quickly.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
Reasoning
Vague, interpretive characterization of AI systems with undefined terms.
Cite this claim
Gary Marcus, “Most of the current best AI systems fundamentally just learn contingencies rather than general abstract concepts that humans can apply quickly.” (said 14 November 2019). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_ba043e6ec569, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_ba043e6ec569
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Gary Marcus
-
Mostly true
“Reviews by Joanna Stern and Marques Brownle of one early prototype were damning;”
Reviews by Joanna Stern and Marques Brownlee of one early humanoid robot prototype were damning.
-
Mostly true
“Many would agree we have reached a point of diminishing returns for scaling; faith in scaling as a route to AGI has dissipated.”
-
Mostly true
“Despite all the hype, agents didn’t turn out to be reliable.”
-
Mixed
“but the systems don’t have the knowledge graph to do that.”
-
Resolved true
“Hasn’t worked so far. That’s for sure.”
Bolting extra components onto an LLM and scaling it up has so far not produced human-level AGI.
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.