This. I think incremental progress is important to report on, and I do buy there have been breakthroughs in alignment, but most of these results are incremental progress at best, not breakthroughs, and I wish there was less hype in this newsletter.
I don’t think that essay does what you want. It seems to be about “you can’t always capture the meaning of something by writing down defining a simple precise definition”, while the complaint is that you’re not using the word according to its widely agreed-upon meaning. If you don’t want to keep explaining what you specifically mean by “breakthrough” in your title each time, you could simply change to a more descriptive word.
FWIW I don’t think it’s honest to title this “breakthroughs”. It’s almost the opposite, a list of incremental progress.
This. I think incremental progress is important to report on, and I do buy there have been breakthroughs in alignment, but most of these results are incremental progress at best, not breakthroughs, and I wish there was less hype in this newsletter.
I’m not interested in arguing about the definitions of words.
When I use the phase “alignment breakthrough” in my title I mean:
someone invented a new technique
Which allowed them to get a new result better than was previously possible
and this result is plausibly applicable to AI alignment
I don’t think that essay does what you want. It seems to be about “you can’t always capture the meaning of something by writing down defining a simple precise definition”, while the complaint is that you’re not using the word according to its widely agreed-upon meaning. If you don’t want to keep explaining what you specifically mean by “breakthrough” in your title each time, you could simply change to a more descriptive word.
A quick google search should show you that the way I am using the word “breakthrough” is in accordance with the common parlance.