>You can have beliefs based on limited information. People do this all the time. And if you actually revealed that belief it would demonstrate that you don’t ac

>You can have beliefs based on limited information. People do this all the time. And if you actually revealed that belief it would demonstrate that you don’t actually currently believe o3 is likely to be world transformative Cool...but i don't want to in this matter. I think the models we have today are already transformative. I don't know if o3 is capable of causing sci-fi mass unemployment (for white collar work) and wouldn't have anything other than essentially a wild guess till it is released. I don't want to make a wild guess. Having beliefs on limited information is often necessary but it isn't some virtue and in my opinion should be avoided when unnecessary. It is definitely not necessary to make a wild guess about model capabilities that will be released next month. >The entire point of the original chess example was to show that in fact it is the correct reaction to repudiate incorrect beliefs of naive litmus test of AGI-ness. If we did what you are arguing then we should accept AGI having occurred after chess was beaten because a lot of people believed that was the litmus test? Like i said, if you have some other caveats that weren't beaten then that's fine. But it's hard to take seriously when you don't.