4 ms·
Oh you mean the paper that was discredited in the link I already shared? I am not going to copy and paste the argument from the link I shared, you can read it f
by MeImCounting 3y ago
Oh you mean the paper that was discredited in the link I already shared? I am not going to copy and paste the argument from the link I shared, you can read it for yourself. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you actually read the article that you claimed to read but unfortunately good faith arguments around this seem impossible to have with the alarmist crowd.
- cubefox 3y agoNo. I mean the paper mentioned in the Twitter thread you didn't read. Here is the link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18233 https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18233
- MeImCounting 3y agoSo yes the paper that was already discredited in the essay I posted that you didn't read ------------------ "While I was writing this, an extra paper game out on the same topic as the "Dual-use biotechnology" paper, with the fun title "Will releasing the weights of future large language models grant widespread access to pandemic agents?"." Maybe this is a totally different paper with exactly the same name but if not, I am not really interested in reading a paper that is unrepeatable and doesn't use control groups because that isnt science