FYI this was used yesterday, in this post.
https://www.aipanic.news/p/the-doomers-dilemma
maybe we can ask @gwern.
Gwern, at what point would you say you were 'wrong' and how would that make you 'update'?
what line would you agree on today @garrison ? At what point would you actually 'update'?
So far, am seeing a lot of people contesting the 'object' and not a lot of people updating. Which is kinda my point. Concordance with the group consensus seems to have become a higher priority than rationalism on this forum.
There are many math and coding benchmarks where models from DeepSeek, Ali baba and tencent are now leading, and definitely leading what was SOTA a year ago. If you don’t want to take my word for it I can dig them up.
The fact that their models are on par with openAI and anthropic but it’s open source.
There are people from the safety community arguing for jail for folks who download open source models.
You can’t have it both ways. Either open source is risky and an acceleration and should be limited/punished, or there is no acceptable change to timelines from open source AI and hence it doesn’t need to be regulated.
Does that make sense?
ok so what criteria would you use to suggest that your statements/gwern’s statements were falisified?
What line can we agree on today, while it feels uncertainty, so that later we’re not still fighting over terminology and more working off the same ground truth?
It’s a very simple question and speaks to the heart of the post, which he decided to comment on.
@Connor Leahy have you updated or not?
Saying you don’t like my tone is an ad hominem. It’s not rational.