The original RSP text uses the word commit for the relevant quote. They could have described it differently in the text itself if they weren’t sure about meeting that standard in the future.
IMO it’s less about the object level badness of the change, which is small potatoes compared to many other recent cases from other leading AI companies, but more about the meta level point that commitments that can be changed aren’t worth very much.
I was about to say “fair enough, in that case it would’ve been useful to include that as an explicit quote”… and then I went back to look at the article and saw that you did include it as an explicit quote that I’d just missed. Sorry, my bad.
The original RSP text uses the word commit for the relevant quote. They could have described it differently in the text itself if they weren’t sure about meeting that standard in the future.
IMO it’s less about the object level badness of the change, which is small potatoes compared to many other recent cases from other leading AI companies, but more about the meta level point that commitments that can be changed aren’t worth very much.
I was about to say “fair enough, in that case it would’ve been useful to include that as an explicit quote”… and then I went back to look at the article and saw that you did include it as an explicit quote that I’d just missed. Sorry, my bad.