Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus I would like in fact to hear a solid and testable proposal based on your 20 years of insisting how ML is not on the right track (as you said in an earlier tweet in this week), instead of another essay.https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1200613819518599169 …

The solid proposal is that we need to search a different part of model space, as described in detail in 2001, where I made several specifics proposals about important challenges that the ML community simply has refused (for the most part) to engage with. I can't do it on my own.

@GaryMarcus "search a different part of model space" is not a testable proposal, nor your whole book from 2001 is. I wanted to hear what that different part is, in equations or pseudo code.

ps 2001 book proposed many specific problems ranging from generalizing low frequency default morphology to acquiring universally quantified one to one mappings to tracking identity and properties of individuals over time. community really has not engaged in any of these.

Researchers rarely engage with general audience non-fiction. If your goal is community engagement, try publishing where they publish. Paying money and sifting through hundreds of pages is a big ask.

Steve, tons of us at DeepMind have read The Algebraic Mind. I see it on people's desks all the time. It's more of a long review article than a popsci book. This is why the usual response to Gary's critiques is "we know, you've been repeating the same thing forever."

also: fair point that @Zergylord is not representative, though I think that @santoroAI may share some of his attitude. I know that @AdamMarblestone, @mpshanahan and Greg Wayne do not.

He will have to keep repeating it. Until researchers and computer architects drop all vestiges of data and data types nothing Gary says will make sense. To access the symbolic connections between things you have to drop all ontology period.