3 ms·
It is an argument: a flawed agent lead to flawed results. A flawed agent does not speak for all agents.
by handfuloflight 1y ago
It is an argument: a flawed agent lead to flawed results. A flawed agent does not speak for all agents.
- oblio 1y agoThe "sufficiently smart compiler" debate, 50 years later :-p
- handfuloflight 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
- contagiousflow 1y agoBut the argument should be showing an agent that does in fact pass these tests. You can't just assert that "this one failed, but surely there must be some agent that is perfect, therefore you can't generalize".
- handfuloflight 1y agoThat's not my argument. My argument isn't "surely there must be some agent that is perfect", my argument is this test study can't speak for all agents.
- nitwit005 1y agoBut no test can. They ran an experiment, they got this result. You can run more experiments if you want.
- handfuloflight 1y agoI didn't say any test could. I'm pointing out the flaw in the commenters in this thread generalizing the findings.