4 ms·

I think you missed the point of my comment. Yes, Scott wrote the comment containing that proposal. But my point was that it was an agreement. Two people who dis

I think you missed the point of my comment. Yes, Scott wrote the comment containing that proposal. But my point was that it was an agreement. Two people who disagreed about AI agreed on the rules, so you can't accuse one of them of being unfair because you don't like the rules. Sure, you can say "that's a bad bet, Scott will obviously win", but you can't say "He shouldn’t declare victory after cherry-picking good results from a small sample of questions", because those terms were explicitly set in advance. The humans -> robots change is possibly dubious, yes. I don't think that it's super important, but if it were me, I wouldn't have posted the blog post as is. I would have waited until some AI passed all the prompts with humans, like it most certainly will in a year.

telotortium 4y ago
Stable Diffusion will soon update to use the biggest CLIP model in existence, which may improve understanding of composition: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=32858809 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=32858809
- TOMDM 4y ago
  Is it the largest CLIP model or the largest open source CLIP model?
  - dhruval 4y ago
    The latter
mannykannot 4y ago
I feel your point, in turn, misses the point of the article. Yes, given that someone accepted the terms and those terms were met, then Alexander won the bet, no question. That particular fact about the bet, however, does nothing to counter Marcus' criticisms of Alexander's methodology and his claims of significant progress on the compositionality problem.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > Yes, given that someone accepted the terms and those terms were met, then Alexander won the bet, no question. You didn't read his post declaring victory. There's plenty of question; he's giving credit for "a llama with a bell on its tail" to ten pictures of llamas without bells on their tails, and for "a robot farmer" to ten pictures of robots with absolutely nothing to suggest they might be farmers. He was way, way too eager to believe that he'd won.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    You prompted me to look more closely at the terms of the bet [1], and they are indeed absurdly biased: just one in ten on three of the five scenarios counts as success. On the substitution of a robot, which simplifies the task, Alexander says "we" agreed to it, and I assume the "we" includes Vitor, as, in his comment (in which he does not concede defeat), he seems to accept the substitution (he also acknowledges that he probably should not have accepted these terms.) The other issue is who judges the outcome. The terms specify Gwern or Cassander (without having secured the assent of either) or they will "figure something out." In his victory claim, Alexander does not mention any independent judge, and interestingly, Gwern posted two comments without explicitly concurring with Alexander's claim, though his second comment might be read as tacitly accepting it. My initial comment, therefore, needs some modification: replace the "given that" with "if", and I think it stands as a counterfactual conditional, having a probably-false antecedent. I don't think Alexander is doing his reputation any favors by being so triumphalist about this misbegotten bet. [1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/a-guide-to-asking-robots-to-design/comment/6945486 https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/a-guide-to-asking-robo...

telotortium 4y ago

Stable Diffusion will soon update to use the biggest CLIP model in existence, which may improve understanding of composition: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=32858809 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=32858809

TOMDM 4y ago
Is it the largest CLIP model or the largest open source CLIP model?
- dhruval 4y ago
  The latter

mannykannot 4y ago

I feel your point, in turn, misses the point of the article. Yes, given that someone accepted the terms and those terms were met, then Alexander won the bet, no question. That particular fact about the bet, however, does nothing to counter Marcus' criticisms of Alexander's methodology and his claims of significant progress on the compositionality problem.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> Yes, given that someone accepted the terms and those terms were met, then Alexander won the bet, no question. You didn't read his post declaring victory. There's plenty of question; he's giving credit for "a llama with a bell on its tail" to ten pictures of llamas without bells on their tails, and for "a robot farmer" to ten pictures of robots with absolutely nothing to suggest they might be farmers. He was way, way too eager to believe that he'd won.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  You prompted me to look more closely at the terms of the bet [1], and they are indeed absurdly biased: just one in ten on three of the five scenarios counts as success. On the substitution of a robot, which simplifies the task, Alexander says "we" agreed to it, and I assume the "we" includes Vitor, as, in his comment (in which he does not concede defeat), he seems to accept the substitution (he also acknowledges that he probably should not have accepted these terms.) The other issue is who judges the outcome. The terms specify Gwern or Cassander (without having secured the assent of either) or they will "figure something out." In his victory claim, Alexander does not mention any independent judge, and interestingly, Gwern posted two comments without explicitly concurring with Alexander's claim, though his second comment might be read as tacitly accepting it. My initial comment, therefore, needs some modification: replace the "given that" with "if", and I think it stands as a counterfactual conditional, having a probably-false antecedent. I don't think Alexander is doing his reputation any favors by being so triumphalist about this misbegotten bet. [1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/a-guide-to-asking-robots-to-design/comment/6945486 https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/a-guide-to-asking-robo...