Guyenet suspects that our brain’s weight set point might never go down dramatically after living long enough in the modern world, even if we eventually stop eating palatable food altogether. If true, this would make his theory harder to test, and again, his theory would earn a penalty for being more unfalsifiable, but at the same time, we should be clear about what observations his theory strongly predicts, and rapid weight loss on unpalatable diets is just not one of them.
I don’t understand how CICO can coexist with the idea of a weight set point. If the mechanism of gaining weight is CICO via overeating because food is so palatable, then it seems natural than on unpalatable food you would eat less, and thus I would expect rapid weight loss on unpalatable diets as a prediction of the theory.
I was confused by Buck’s response here because I thought we were going for worst-case quality until I realised:
The model will have low quality on those prompts almost by definition—that’s the goal.
Given that, we also want to have a generally useful model—for which the relevant distribution is ‘all fanfiction’, not “prompts that are especially likely to have a violent continuation”.
In between those two cases is ‘snippets that were completed injuriously in the original fanfic … but could plausibly have non-violent completions’, which seems like the interesting case to me.
I suppose one possibility is to construct a human-labelled dataset of specifically these cases to evaluate on.