fwiw, from my time at MATS, I recall several projects that were ‘just capabilities’. I’m not sure if those ended up being published on, or what the overall ratio was (it wasn’t 1⁄6, surely, but the Anthropic program also has a much smaller sample size than MATS).
To the extent that some people updated on the fellows program based on this comment, it’s likely they should also update on MATS (although to a lesser degree), and I’d be interested in an analysis of MATS research outputs that found the ratio (maybe they’ve already done this analysis, and maybe the fraction is very small, like 1⁄50).
(I also think counting papers is a bad way to do this since, as Thomas points out, research is very long-tailed and it’s hard to know the total impact of any given piece of research soon after publication.)
fwiw, from my time at MATS, I recall several projects that were ‘just capabilities’. I’m not sure if those ended up being published on, or what the overall ratio was (it wasn’t 1⁄6, surely, but the Anthropic program also has a much smaller sample size than MATS).
To the extent that some people updated on the fellows program based on this comment, it’s likely they should also update on MATS (although to a lesser degree), and I’d be interested in an analysis of MATS research outputs that found the ratio (maybe they’ve already done this analysis, and maybe the fraction is very small, like 1⁄50).
(I also think counting papers is a bad way to do this since, as Thomas points out, research is very long-tailed and it’s hard to know the total impact of any given piece of research soon after publication.)