I’m curious to hear what conclusions you think we would have came to & should come to. I’m skeptical that they would have been qualitatively different. Perhaps you are going to argue that we shouldn’t put much credence in the superexponential model? What should we put it in instead? Got a better superexponential model for us? Or are you going to say we should stick to exponential?
Thanks for engaging, I’m afraid I can’t join the call due to a schedule conflict but I look forward to hearing about it from Eli!
Ah, I was trying to avoid implying a lack of integrity in the forecasting effort, and as a result ended up implying knowing other things about your mental state.
To restate: I do not think a forecaster not previously committed to achieving a result with a median around that point would have, after doing a perturbation analysis that would display how dominant the two superexponential terms are in predetermining that specific outcome, presented those conclusions without hammering the point that those two superexponential terms are completely determining the topline result and that no other parameters make a meaningful contribution, whether forecasts of compute availability, current capabilities, capabilities required for SC, or otherwise.
Sorry if my previous comment implied something else!
I’m curious to hear what conclusions you think we would have came to & should come to. I’m skeptical that they would have been qualitatively different. Perhaps you are going to argue that we shouldn’t put much credence in the superexponential model? What should we put it in instead? Got a better superexponential model for us? Or are you going to say we should stick to exponential?
Thanks for engaging, I’m afraid I can’t join the call due to a schedule conflict but I look forward to hearing about it from Eli!
Ah, I was trying to avoid implying a lack of integrity in the forecasting effort, and as a result ended up implying knowing other things about your mental state.
To restate: I do not think a forecaster not previously committed to achieving a result with a median around that point would have, after doing a perturbation analysis that would display how dominant the two superexponential terms are in predetermining that specific outcome, presented those conclusions without hammering the point that those two superexponential terms are completely determining the topline result and that no other parameters make a meaningful contribution, whether forecasts of compute availability, current capabilities, capabilities required for SC, or otherwise.
Sorry if my previous comment implied something else!