A question that occurred to me when reading Eliezer’s answer to Scott’s question “Can you expand on sexual recombinant hill-climbing search vs. gradient descent relative to a loss function …”:
How sensitive is the logic of Eliezer’s answer to variations in the numbers he quotes?
For example, at one point in the explanation, Eliezer derives a number, 7.5 megabytes. Now let’s say that we learn that actually, this number should instead be not 7.5 MB, but 75 MB. (For whatever reason—maybe we make some new discovery in genomics, or maybe we find that Eliezer made an arithmetic error; either way, the number is found to be otherwise than Eliezer gives it.)
What effect does this have on the reasoning that Eliezer outlines? What if it’s 750 MB instead? 7.5 GB? 750 KB? 75 TB? etc.
(And likewise the other numbers involved, like “70 million neurons”, etc.)
A question that occurred to me when reading Eliezer’s answer to Scott’s question “Can you expand on sexual recombinant hill-climbing search vs. gradient descent relative to a loss function …”:
How sensitive is the logic of Eliezer’s answer to variations in the numbers he quotes?
For example, at one point in the explanation, Eliezer derives a number, 7.5 megabytes. Now let’s say that we learn that actually, this number should instead be not 7.5 MB, but 75 MB. (For whatever reason—maybe we make some new discovery in genomics, or maybe we find that Eliezer made an arithmetic error; either way, the number is found to be otherwise than Eliezer gives it.)
What effect does this have on the reasoning that Eliezer outlines? What if it’s 750 MB instead? 7.5 GB? 750 KB? 75 TB? etc.
(And likewise the other numbers involved, like “70 million neurons”, etc.)