No. Apple's paper is just wrong, and so is Gary Marcus.
How they conducted their tests inherently limited the models.
Their findings were not due to a lack of thinking ability, but to testing errors. More specifically, overly restrictive token limits and problematic formatting.
x.com/kimmonismus/...

Never seen any sign of that.
They're neither a hate group, unless you count hate for nonconsensual mutilation, nor antisemites.
There's plenty of reasons to view infant circumcision as a horrible practice, without any antisemitism coming into it.
The benefits are exaggerated, while harms downplayed.

Why does it matter whether one uses descriptive writing skill to build an image, instead of muscle skill? They're still expressing their imagination.
Nearly all art tools were created to reduce the time & effort needed, to bring something from our imaginations, into the real world for others to see.

AI's energy usage is being overly exaggerated by those looking for ways to demonize it.
Running AI models on a home PC takes less energy than using the same PC for gaming.
Whether we're talking about energy, water or carbon, AI uses far less than existing things we do.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Maybe, but that make sense, text data is smaller than image data after all.
Generating an AI image still uses less energy than most other things we do with technology.
People can run AI models at home, using less energy for less time, than it takes to play video games.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

To correct misinformation, neither does AI.
That's not how generative AI works, and running AI models on a home PC takes far less energy than using the same PC for gaming.
Whether we're talking about energy, water or carbon, AI uses far less than existing alternatives.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...