I regret your decision to curate this post. The version that landed in my inbox did not begin with the epistemic status warning.
viluon
Karma: 52
I’d really like to see Eliezer engage with this comment, because to me it looks like the following sentence’s well-foundedness is rightly being questioned.
it’s naked mathematical truth that the task GPTs are being trained on is harder than being an actual human.
While I generally agree that powerful optimizers are dangerous, the fact that the GPT task and the “being an actual human” task are somewhat different has nothing to do with it.
I’m delighted I read the post in the curated newsletter without noticing who was the author and only then decided to head here to upvote it. I wonder if moving the authorship information to the end of the newsletter influences the reader’s willingness to upvote the post – perhaps an opportunity for an A/B test?
Indeed.
Unfortunately, the egregious errors pointed out in the other comments, even if since corrected, heavily undermine my trust in the process that produced this content. I am surprised to find false AI claims with little apriori verification in curated.
I wonder how many people upvoted before the epistemic status disclaimer, corrections, or comments were added.