Sounds like your scale is stingier than mine is a lot of it. And it makes sense that the recommendations come apart at the extreme high end, especially for older films. The 'for the time' here is telling.
On my scale, if I went 1 for 7 on finding 4.0+ films in a year, then yeah I'd find that a disappointing year.
In other news, I tried out Scaruffi. I figured I'd watch the top pick. Number was Citizen Kane which I'd already watched (5.0 so that was a good sign), which was Repulsion. And... yeah, that was not a good selection method. Critics and I do NOT see eye to eye.
I also scanned their ratings of various other films, which generally seemed reasonable for films I'd seen, although with a very clear 'look at me I am a movie critic' bias, including one towards older films. I don't know how to correct for that properly.
Real estate can definitely be a special case, because (1) you are also doing consumption, (2) it is non-recourse and you never get a margin call, which provides a lot of protection and (3) The USG is massively subsidizing you doing that...
There are lead times to a lot of these actions, costs to do so are often fixed, and no reason to expect the rules changes not to happen. I buy that it is efficient to do so early.
'Greed' I consider a non-sequitur here, the manager will profit maximize.
I'm curious how many films you saw - having only one above 3.5 on that scale seems highly disappointing.
Argument from incredulity?
Thanks for the notes!
As I understand that last point, you're saying that it's not a good point because it is false (hence my 'if it turns out to be true'). Weird that I've heard the claim from multiple places in these discussions. I assumed there was some sort of 'order matters in terms of pre-training vs. fine-tuning obviously, but there's a phase shift in what you're doing between them.' I also did wonder about the whole 'you can remove Llama-2's fine tuning in 100 steps' thing, since if that is true then presumably order must matter within fine tuning.
Anyone think there's any reason to think Pope isn't simply technically wrong here (including Pope)?
Yep, whoops, fixing.
That seems rather loaded in the other direction. How about “The evidence suggests that if current ML systems were going to deceive us in scenarios that do not appear in our training sets, we wouldn’t be able to detect this or change them not to unless we found the conditions where it would happen.”?
Did you see (https://thezvi.substack.com/p/balsa-update-and-general-thank-you)? That's the closest thing available at the moment.