This wins the prize for sleazy misrepresentation. @mattShumer took my 2023 argument for hybridizing LLMs with symbolic tools – which is *exa…

This wins the prize for sleazy misrepresentation. @mattShumer took my 2023 argument for hybridizing LLMs with symbolic tools – which is exactly what everyone does nowadays – and made it sound like I said something completely different, by taking nine words entirely out of context. He also distorts all of my arguments that said that LLMs would need to be supplemented by neurosymbolic tools (which they have been) and pretends I said that LLMs would have no role, when I never said any such thing. My point was that we would need to supplement LLMs for with tools, and we have. He never acknowledges this, and tries to obscure that. Complete intellectual dishonesty. Gary Marcus is right that math ≠ all of science. But his bar just keeps moving: 2012: deep learning is "at best, only a small step toward the creation of truly intelligent machines" 2022: "deep learning is hitting a wall" months before ChatGPT 2023: fine, chatbots, but they "neve…

Related

• people with advanced degrees who can’t distinguish between pure LLMs (which is what I critiqued in 2022) and LLMs enhanced with neurosymboli…
• @GaryMarcus Marcus isn't wrong. Everyone bolts tools onto transformers because they hit walls fast. Neurosymbolic AI is rising for a reason:…
• For almost two decades people like @YLeCun and @geoffreyhinton dumped on me for saying we need symbols in addition to deep learning. But tha…
• The pure LLM debate - which I had for many years, here and elsewhere - is indeed no longer relevant. Why? Because I won; nobody uses pure LL…

Source: Gary Marcus (X) | 2026-08-02