| This is fully pathetic. I expect poor quality from Marcus bit this really takes the cake. >LeCun, 2022: Reinforcement learning will also never be enough for intelligence; Marcus, 2018: “ it is misleading to credit deep reinforcement learning with inducing concept[s] ” > “I think AI systems need to be able to reason,"; Marcus 2018: “Problems that have less to do with categorization and more to do with commonsense reasoning essentially lie outside the scope of what deep learning is appropriate for, and so far as I can tell, deep learning has little to offer such problems.” >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.” These are LeCun's supposed great transgressions? Vague statements that happen to be vaguely similar to Marcus' vague statements? Marcus also trots out random tweets to show how supported his position is and one mentions a Marcus paper with 800 citations as being "engaged in the literature". But a paper like Attention is all you need that currently has over 40,000 citations. THAT is a paper the community is engaged with. Not something with less than 1/50th the citations. This is a joke... |