3 ms·
See my response to the other commenter. In these cases as well I would conclude it's very weak evidence of AGI, so I don't think we disagree. Edit: I think may
by bubblyworld 2y ago
See my response to the other commenter. In these cases as well I would conclude it's very weak evidence of AGI, so I don't think we disagree.
Edit: I think maybe the disagreement here is about the nature of evidence. I think there can be evidence that something is AGI even if it isn't, in fact, AGI. You seem to believe that if there's any evidence that something is AGI, it must be AGI, I think?
- educasean 2y agoI personally don't find this line of rhetoric useful or relevant. Let's agree to disagree.
- bubblyworld 2y agoOkay, that's fair. But to be clear - this is a theorem of probability theory, not rhetoric.