Depends on the reference class. As of the past year or so, 1m eyes on a piece of AI safety content isn’t crazy, especially for a video on Twitter, where my impression is the criteria for what counts as a ‘view’ are pretty liberal. Like, plausibly the video has been viewed in full (much) less than half that many times.
Separately, videos posted by that account seem to routinely get ~1m views—not outperforming other content from an external collaborator is a little disappointing from a raw metrics perspective! Naively you’d hope to get the combined weight of your respective audiences, which seems to have only somewhat happened here.
When I posted this I think I expected we’d get to 2m views in the first couple days (weakly outperforming other Sanders Twitter content). I think with a different video, that could have happened.
Separately, videos posted by that account seem to routinely get ~1m views—not outperforming other content from an external collaborator is a little disappointing from a raw metrics perspective! Naively you’d hope to get the combined weight of your respective audiences, which seems to have only somewhat happened here.
Huh? Eliezer’s main account tens to get a few ten thousands of views. So under the combination of respective audiences theory, it’s… mostly the audience of Bernie Sanders! Surely that breaks containment.
Also, looking at Bernie’s account suggests that it’s in the higher view count class of his posts—some get 2M but others get 100K and if you go by eyeballed average it seems to be 500k.
I was comparing to a broader activation of Eliezer’s audience vs any given tweet.
Outperforming the ‘average’ is the wrong standard for ‘blowing up’. ‘Blowing up’ would be ‘outperforming all the recent similar artifacts’, at least as I intended it in my original post.
Meta: it feels pretty strange to have used an underspecified colloquial term, to have walked back the applicability of that term as I intended to use it, and then to be told I’m wrong for walking it back. The point I cared about capturing in that edit is ‘this tweet didn’t do as well as I expected when it first dropped.’ That’s a claim about my own expectations.
The point I care about is whether it’s gotten to a substantial audience of ‘normal’ people. I had read you as making claims that that hadn’t really happened; yet it looks to me that, to the extent that twitter’s viewcount is reasonable (though I believe you that it probably isn’t), a million people who are mostly Bernie Sanders fans got exposed to the video. If you only meant that this is less than what you expected, then that’s my bad and we don’t have any disagreement.
...it has 1.2 M views. Surely it’s “blown up” at this point.
Depends on the reference class. As of the past year or so, 1m eyes on a piece of AI safety content isn’t crazy, especially for a video on Twitter, where my impression is the criteria for what counts as a ‘view’ are pretty liberal. Like, plausibly the video has been viewed in full (much) less than half that many times.
Separately, videos posted by that account seem to routinely get ~1m views—not outperforming other content from an external collaborator is a little disappointing from a raw metrics perspective! Naively you’d hope to get the combined weight of your respective audiences, which seems to have only somewhat happened here.
When I posted this I think I expected we’d get to 2m views in the first couple days (weakly outperforming other Sanders Twitter content). I think with a different video, that could have happened.
Still an exciting crossover episode.
Huh? Eliezer’s main account tens to get a few ten thousands of views. So under the combination of respective audiences theory, it’s… mostly the audience of Bernie Sanders! Surely that breaks containment.
Also, looking at Bernie’s account suggests that it’s in the higher view count class of his posts—some get 2M but others get 100K and if you go by eyeballed average it seems to be 500k.
I was comparing to other video posts by Sanders.
I was comparing to a broader activation of Eliezer’s audience vs any given tweet.
Outperforming the ‘average’ is the wrong standard for ‘blowing up’. ‘Blowing up’ would be ‘outperforming all the recent similar artifacts’, at least as I intended it in my original post.
Meta: it feels pretty strange to have used an underspecified colloquial term, to have walked back the applicability of that term as I intended to use it, and then to be told I’m wrong for walking it back. The point I cared about capturing in that edit is ‘this tweet didn’t do as well as I expected when it first dropped.’ That’s a claim about my own expectations.
The point I care about is whether it’s gotten to a substantial audience of ‘normal’ people. I had read you as making claims that that hadn’t really happened; yet it looks to me that, to the extent that twitter’s viewcount is reasonable (though I believe you that it probably isn’t), a million people who are mostly Bernie Sanders fans got exposed to the video. If you only meant that this is less than what you expected, then that’s my bad and we don’t have any disagreement.