DeepMind researcher argues AI-debate authors ignore empirical evidence that contradicts them
AndrewLampinen · x · 2026-09-27
DeepMind researcher Andrew Lampinen criticized a paper on AI understanding and reasoning, saying the underlying questions—what it means for a system to understand or reason, examined through what these systems do and don't accomplish—are deeply fascinating and worth engaging with.
His real frustration: the authors never engage with empirical evidence they disagree with. He notes it's fine to make a poor argument with flashy rhetoric, but authors should update as evidence changes—and these authors clearly don't.
More from AGI Musings
- Martin Casado: labs missed Jev because 'beings speak' — software needed a model that chooses — multiply_matrix · 2026-09-27
- Researcher laments the industry is abandoning structure: "just trust the agent, bro" — ivan_bezdomny · 2026-09-27
- "A purely digital job with zero offline component is dangerous today," argues AI commentator — itsOmSarraf_ · 2026-09-27
- NYU's Tal Linzen cites two papers arguing tool use breaks Bender & Koller's 'no meaning' case — tallinzen · 2026-09-27
- Bruce Fenton: AI's only path to killing billions is centralized power, not the tech itself — ccerrato147 · 2026-09-27
- Steven Pinker declines Scott Alexander's AI-doomerism debate challenge in open letter — GaryMarcus · 2026-09-27