It does sound like it may be a new and in a narrow sense unexpected technical development
I buy that, sure. I even buy that they’re as excited about it as they present, that they believe/hope it unlocks generalization to hard-ot-verify domains. And yes, they may or may not be right. But I’m skeptical on priors/based on my model of ML, and their excitement isn’t very credible evidence, so I’ve not moved far from said priors.
Got it! I’m more inclined to generally expect that various half-decent ideas may unlock surprising advances (for no good reason in particular), so I’m less skeptical that this may be true. Also, while math is of course easy to verify, assuming they haven’t significantly used verification in the training process, it makes their claims more reasonable.
I buy that, sure. I even buy that they’re as excited about it as they present, that they believe/hope it unlocks generalization to hard-ot-verify domains. And yes, they may or may not be right. But I’m skeptical on priors/based on my model of ML, and their excitement isn’t very credible evidence, so I’ve not moved far from said priors.
Got it! I’m more inclined to generally expect that various half-decent ideas may unlock surprising advances (for no good reason in particular), so I’m less skeptical that this may be true.
Also, while math is of course easy to verify, assuming they haven’t significantly used verification in the training process, it makes their claims more reasonable.