Gary Marcus

Seems like you're moving the yardstick here. It's coherent wrt entities often over whole paragraphs. Certainly that falls into the camp of things "deep learning shouldn't do". Obviously it's not solving the common sense problem, but it's hard to argue that it's not a step forward

if i did same with n-grams where n > 50, yielding similar local coherence, would you insist that I count that as progress? we may not have had the data or compute in 1960s, but we have long known that local quasi-coherence can be captured that way - without real understanding

Then why is it getting decent Winograd scores (a test you originally made me aware of when pointing out BERT's shortcomings)? I asked if one could just throw 10x more data at it and you indicated that wasn't feasible. Are we there yet?https://twitter.com/bensprecher/status/1071651722181849088?s=19 …

Decent, not great, because of some modest correlations? Hard for me to say much without seeing any of the data and without access to the model. Would be interesting to see if it asymptotes or improves with eg 10x or more data.

"..simultaneously close and not close to Searle's room." We have gone quantum...it's now Schroedinger's room. PS: have you written about your thoughts on Searles room?