Yea, I guess I was a little unclear on whether your post constituted a bet offer where people could simply reply to accept as I did, or if you were doing specific follow-up to finalize the bet agreements. I see you did do that with Nathan and Tomás, so it makes sense you didn’t view our bet as on. It’s ok, I was more interested in the epistemic/forecasting points than the $1,000 anyway. ;)
I commend you for following up and for your great retrospective analysis of the benchmark criteria. Even though I offered to take your bet, I didn’t realize just how problematic the benchmark criteria were for your side of the bet.
Most importantly, it’s disquieting and bad news that long timelines are looking increasingly implausible. I would have felt less worried about a world where you were right about that.
Just for the record, I also took your bet. ;)
Congratulations. However, unless I’m mistaken, you simply said you’d be open to taking the bet. We didn’t actually take it with you, did we?
Yea, I guess I was a little unclear on whether your post constituted a bet offer where people could simply reply to accept as I did, or if you were doing specific follow-up to finalize the bet agreements. I see you did do that with Nathan and Tomás, so it makes sense you didn’t view our bet as on. It’s ok, I was more interested in the epistemic/forecasting points than the $1,000 anyway. ;)
I commend you for following up and for your great retrospective analysis of the benchmark criteria. Even though I offered to take your bet, I didn’t realize just how problematic the benchmark criteria were for your side of the bet.
Most importantly, it’s disquieting and bad news that long timelines are looking increasingly implausible. I would have felt less worried about a world where you were right about that.